2011 PLP 590 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAEES — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Town Planning
| Citation | 2011 PLP 590 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Mushir Alam and Aqeel A. Abbasi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAEES — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Town Planning |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 590 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2011 PLP 590 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Mushir Alam and Aqeel A. Abbasi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2011 PLP 590 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAEES — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Housing and Town Planning). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Wajid Wyne for Petitioners (in C.Ps. Nos. D-2348, to 2354 of 2006).
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Petitioners had sought direction against authorities to hand over the possession of the respective properties claimed by them
Counsel for authorities had rightly pointed out that petitioners had specifically mentioned in their petition that acknowledgment of possession order was issued in favour of the original allottees
Petitioners had also pleaded that they had acquired the properties from the third successive owners thereof
In view of such admission by the petitioners, they could not come forward to seek any relief front the authorities
Petitioners, if had any right or title to the property, could claim relief under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 or any other law as could be available to them. Manzoor Ahmed for the C.D.G.K.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioners in all these petitions have sought direction against the respondent to hand over the possession of the respective properties claimed by the respective petitioners. Manzoor Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for C.D.G.K., has rightly pointed out that the petitioners in paras. 6 to 8 in their petitions have specifically mentioned that Acknowledgement of Possession Order was issued in favour of the original allottees. It is also pleaded by the petitioners that they have acquired the properties from the third successive owners thereof. In the wake of such admission by the petitioners, they cannot now come forward to seek any relief from C.D.G.K. Petitioners having any right and/or title to the property may claim relief under the Illegal Dispossession Act or any other law as may be available to the petitioners. All these petitions filed by the respective petitioners do not merit consideration, which are accordingly dismissed along with all pending applications. However, the petitioners are left to seek such remedy as may be available under the law. H.B.T./M-124/K Petition dismissed.