2004 PLP 905 (SCMR)
GHULAM AMIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 905 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM AMIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 905 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 905 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Mian Muhammad Ajmal and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 905 (SCMR) (GHULAM AMIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Amjad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court with C.M. Lateef, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 2‑11‑1999 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1451‑D of 1986). ‑‑‑‑Ss. 42 & 54‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Building plan, sanction of‑‑‑Concurrent findings of fact by the Courts below‑‑ Grievance of the plaintiff was that the suit‑land was not acquired by the authorities and did not fall within the residential scheme, therefore, the authorities could not deny sanction of building plan‑‑Trial Court dismissed the suit and the judgment and decree was maintained by Appellate Court as well as by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact that the suit property had been included in an approved, scheme since 1942‑43 and that the suit property was duly acquired‑‑‑Acquisition of the land having been admitted by the plaintiff there was no question of sanctioning of the building plan of the plaintiff qua the suit property, the title of which was already vested in the Municipal Corporation Judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below did not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by Supreme Court‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
Malik Amjad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court with C.M. Lateef, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th July, 2002. FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.‑‑‑The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against judgment dated 2‑11‑1999 whereby Civil Revision No.1451‑D of 1986 was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner made an application for sanctioning a building plan of the suit property measuring 1 Kanal, 8 Marlas which was rejected by the respondent No.1 on 26‑7‑1975. He filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction that the very scheme framed by the respondent/Corporation within which the suit property fell was illegal. The Civil Judge, Sialkot dismissed the civil suit of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 24‑4‑1984. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 16‑4‑1986 followed by the impugned judgment dated 2‑11‑1992 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No. 1451‑D of 1986.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court was bound to pass a speaking order and to go through the record of the case before disposing of the civil revision. There was neither any properly sanctioned scheme nor any valid acquisition covering the suit land.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact that the suit property was included in an approved scheme of the respondent/corporation since 1942‑43 and that the suit property had been duly acquired. It was also observed that the petitioner had admitted the acquisition of the suit property and had produced through P.W.2, a Building Inspector of the respondent‑Corporation a copy of the judgment delivered by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No.365 of‑ 1967. In these circumstances; there was no question of the sanctioning of the building plan of the petitioner qua the suit property the title of which already vested in the respondent‑Corporation. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal.
5. We do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly. M.H./G‑148/S Petition dismissed