1976 PLP 110 (SCMR)
INDUSTRIES, PESHAWAR CITY-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD,
| Citation | 1976 PLP 110 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | INDUSTRIES, PESHAWAR CITY-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD, |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1976 PLP 110 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1976 PLP 110 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1976 PLP 110 (SCMR) (INDUSTRIES, PESHAWAR CITY-Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY BOARD,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Peer Bakhsh Khan, Advocate, Supreme Court instructed by M. Qasim Imam, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No. 1.
- Amirzada Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2.
- Date of hearing : 13th October 1975.
- We have heard Mr. Peer Bakhsh Khan, Advocate at some length in support of the petition. In our opinion, on the facts of the case, the view taken by the High Court was unassailable and calls for no interference by this Court. The aforesaid provisions of the statute contemplate an appeal where the question is whether the property in dispute is in the nature of trust or not.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of tae Peshawar High Court, . Peshawar, dated 25‑6‑1975, in F. A, No. 15 of 1974). Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) ‑‑‑ S. 4(3), (4)‑‑Appeal‑Nature of trust property not being in question No appeal lay under S. 4(3), (4)‑Appeal lies only where question involved is whether property is or is not in nature of trust.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Gul. J.‑This petition is from the judgment of the Peshawar High Court dated 25‑6‑1975, dismissing, what purported to be an appeal by the ‑ petitioner herein, under subsections (3) and (4) of section 4 of the Act 28 of 1958, in the circumstances set out below. The Deputy Commissioner, Peshawar acting as the Chairman District Evacuee Trust Committee Peshawar, leased out about 16000 sq. feet situate in the area called Panj Tirath' for a period of five years to the petitioner herein on annual rental of Rs.
160. There is no dispute that the lease hold was evacuee trust property and the petitioner was put in its possession and started construction on a plot measuring about 37298 of which area actually leased to the petitioner formed the part. The Chairman. Evacuee Trust Property Board Lahore (respondent 1) being apprised of the lease and the construction started by the petitioner, sent a telegraphic notice to the petitioner to immediately stop the construction. The petitioner it appears ignored the notice and proceeded with the construction. The matter was then examined by the Chairman (respondent 1) in exorcise of his sun motu revisional jurisdiction. He again issued a notice to the petitioner on 19‑2‑1973, to stop the construction. The petitioner appeared before the Chairman through his counsel in support of its right to raise the impugned construction. The Chairman after considering the matter as aforesaid, ordered the petitioner's ejectment. He held the lease of 16000 sq. feet of evacuee trust property in favour of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner Peshawar as "ab initio void" ‑ and of no legal effect and the possession of the entire plot measuring 38,130 sq. ft. by the petitioner was unauthorised. The petitioner went in appeal purporting to be under section 4 (3) and (4) of Act 28 of 1958, against the above order. On a preliminary on taken on behalf of respondent 1 that the nature of the trust property not teeing in question, no appeal lay under section 4 (3) and (4) of the Act 28 of 1958, the High Court gave effect to this objection and dismissed the appeal as being incompetent. We have heard Mr. Peer Bakhsh Khan, Advocate at some length in support of the petition. In our opinion, on the facts of the case, the view taken by the High Court was unassailable and calls for no interference by this Court. The aforesaid provisions of the statute contemplate an appeal where the question is whether the property in dispute is in the nature of trust or not. The petition is accordingly dismissed: Petition dismissed.