1997SCMR 1341 (PLP)
IMAM DIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997SCMR 1341 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Karim, JJ. |
| Parties | IMAM DIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997SCMR 1341 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1997SCMR 1341 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui and Fazal Karim, JJ..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997SCMR 1341 (PLP) (IMAM DIN and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR OF AUQAF, LAHORE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Akram Khawaja, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
- Naseem Ahmed Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 15th November, 1995.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of Lahore High Court dated 19‑12‑1994 passed in F.A.O.No.34/91). West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance (XXVIH of 1961)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 7‑‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), Ss.10 & 11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑ Property in question, was initially taken over as Waqf property belonging to Muslims‑‑‑Such property was, however, later transferred under provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 to predecessor‑in‑interest' of petitioners and P.T.D. was issued to him on 17‑5‑1964, who filed application under S.7, West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, 1961, whereupon, District Judge found that property in question was not Waqf property‑‑‑High Court, however, set aside such finding ‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court had set aside judgment of District Judge mainly on the ground that petition under S.7 of the Ordinance was not filed within 30 days of Notification as required under the Ordinance‑‑ Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether period of 30 days could not be applied in view of the fact that property in question, itself was transferred in favour of predecessor of petitioners about 4 years after the notification, treating it as evacuee property; and such property having been acquired under the compensation pool constituted under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the same could not be acquired by respondent as Waqf property under the Ordinance.
Judgment & Decree
SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, J.‑‑‑The petitioners are seeking leave to appeal against the judgment of a learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court dated 19‑12‑1994 whereby F.A.O. No.34 of 1991 filed by the respondent was allowed and the decision of District Judge given on a petition under section 7 of West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance. 1961 (hereinafter to be referred as the Ordinance only) was set aside with the result the petition filed by the petitioners before the District Judge under the Ordinance stood rejected.
2. The relevant facts of the case are that under notification dated 21‑12‑1960 the property which is subject‑matter of this petition was acquired by the respondent as a Waqaf Property belonging to the Muslims. It is admitted before us that this very property was later transferred under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act. 1958 to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners and a P.T.D. was issued to him on 17‑5‑1964. The petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest, accordingly, filed an application under section 7 of the Ordinance on 16‑10‑1967 which was accepted by the District Judge, Lahore, and it was held that the property was not a Waqf property. The decision of the District Judge was challenged by the Chief Administrator of Auqaf in F.A.O. No.34 of 1991 before Lahore High Court which was allowed by a learned Judge in Chambers, giving rise to the present petition.
3. The learned Judge in Chambers accepted F.A.O. filed by the respondent and set aside the judgment of the District Judge mainly on the ground that the petition under section 7 of the Ordinance was not filed within 30 days of the notification as required under the Ordinance. In seeking leave to appeal,. the learned counsel for the petitioner firstly, contended that this period of 30 days could not be applied in the present case as the property itself was transferred in favour of predecessor‑of‑petitioners about 4 years after the notification treating it as an evacuee property, was issued. It is, accordingly, contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the property having been acquired under the compensation pool constituted under the provisions of Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, the same could not be acquired by respondent as a Waqf property under the Ordinance. The contentions raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners require examination and we, accordingly, I grant leave to appeal to consider the same. A.A./I.254/S Leave granted.