2008 PLP 105 (SCMR)
IQBAL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Housing and Town Planning, Karachi and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 105 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ |
| Parties | IQBAL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Housing and Town Planning, Karachi and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XII of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 105 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XII of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 105 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Rana Bhagwandas and Hamid Ali Mirza, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 105 (SCMR) (IQBAL HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Housing and Town Planning, Karachi and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- 2. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate -on-Record for the petitioner at some length and gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment, dated 2-6-2006 in Constitution Petition No.1255 of 2006 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi).
Ss. 53 & 54
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 1991--Duties and functions of public functionaries
Allotment of plot without formulations of scheme
High Court dismissed constitutional petition by the petitioners/allottees, holding that Chief Minister was not legally authorized and competent to allot any plot in urban area without formulation of any scheme under Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and that Chief Minister could not act at his whims as the procedure prescribed regarding the transfer of land in city of Karachi was not followed
Public functionaries, including the Chief Minister could deal with the public property only in a prescribed procedure within the parameters of law under a duly sanctioned scheme and not at their whites
Even if such order was passed by the Chief Minister in favour of petitioners, concerned authorities, were not bound to follow such illegal and void order of a superior authority
It would be in the exigencies of good administration and their duty if authorities pointed out to the high-ups that they were acting in excess of their lawful authority and in violation of law and the constitutional mandate
Authorities could be apprised of the legal consequences flowing from such acts
Compliance of any illegal and arbitrary order was neither binding on the subordinate forums nor valid in the eyes of law
High Court neither, had committed any illegality nor had acted in violation of settled principles of law, while dismissing petitioner's constitutional petition
Impugned order, in circumstances, did not call for interference by Supreme Court. Abdul Haq v. Government of Sindh PLD 2000 Kar. 224; Abdul Haq Indhar v. Province of Sindh 2000 SCMR 907 and Taj Muhammad v. Town Committee 1994 CLC 2214 ref.
Judgment & Decree
RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.
This petition is directed against Sindh High Court judgment, dated 2-6-2006 dismissing petitioner's writ petition seeking direction to respondents Nos.2 and 3 to allot the plot of land to him within the city of Karachi as ordered by the Chief Minister, Sindh; on the application of the petitioner way back on 10-2-1986. The ground which weighed with the High Court appears to be that Chief Minister, Sindh was not legally authorized and competent to allot any plot of land in urban areas without formulation of any scheme under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. At any rate he could not act at his whims as the procedure prescribed for regulating the transfer of land in City of Karachi was neither followed nor adhered to. While referring to an earlier judgment of Sindh High Court in Abdul Haq v. Government of Sindh PLD 2000 Kar. 224, the High Court observed that all public functionaries howsoever high they may be are bound to act within the parameters of law.
2. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocate -on-Record for the petitioner at some length and gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court.
3. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court when it says that public functionaries including the Chief Minister can deal with the public property only under a prescribed procedure within the parameters of law under a duly sanctioned scheme and not at their whims. Even if such order was passed by the Chief Minister in favour of the petitioner, authorities concerned would not be bound to follow such illegal and void order of a superior authority. It would rather be in the exigencies of good order of administration and their duty to point out to the high-ups that they were acting in excess of their lawful authority and in violation of law and the constitutional mandate. They may be apprised of the legal consequences flowing from such acts. The compliance of any illegal and arbitrary order is neither binding on the subordinate forums nor valid in the eyes of law. Reference in this behalf may be made to decision of this Court in Abdul Haq Indhar V. Province of Sindh 2000 SCMR 907 and (ii) Taj Muhammad v. Town Committee 1994 CLC 2214.
4. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the High Court neither committed any illegality nor acted in violation of settled principles of law while dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. Impugned judgment thus, does not call for interference.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed being without any merit. H.B.T./I-25/SC Petition dismissed.