2007 PLP 693 (YLR)
AHMAD SOHAIB — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Housing and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2007 PLP 693 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | AHMAD SOHAIB — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Housing and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 693 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 693 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 693 (YLR) (AHMAD SOHAIB — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Housing and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mumtaz Hussain Bokhari for Respondent No.4.
- Syed Ikhtisar Hussain for Respondent No.5.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition--Maintainability
Land claimed by petitioner to be reserved for park, was a private land, acquisition whereof had been challenged by respondent and a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction in favour of respondent had been passed
Appeal against said decree was pending in Appellate Court below
No park could be developed at a disputed place unless, controversy was resolved
Matter was pending before a court of competent jurisdiction
Respondent had levelled -serious allegations against petitioner and had submitted that act of filing of petition was sheer blackmailing
No direction could be issued to respondent unless litigation was concluded
Petition being devoid of force, was dismissed. Petitioner in person.
Judgment & Decree
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.
The petitioner through the instant constitutional petition has assailed the act of omission on the part of the respondents to clear all sorts of rubbish lying at Block No.E-I, Johar Town, Lahore and for completion of the project/park.
2. It is contended that 150 Kanals of land situated in Block No.E-I, Johar Town, Lahore was earmarked for the purpose of park but respondents Nos.3 and 4 have shown neglect, as a result thereof the site meant for the park has become a storage of rubbish.
3. The respondents contested the petition and separately filed reply as well as parawise comments. Respondent No.5 has submitted that the filing of the instant petition is an act of sheer blackmailing and the respondent No.5 has been shown as Tehsil Nazim while he was not Tehsil Nazim at the relevant time. He added that the land measuring 140 Kanals was originally owned by Haji Ch. Lal Din, the deceased father of respondent No.5 and after his death the same was devolved upon his legal heirs. It is denied that the land was ever earmarked for the purpose of park and submitted that the land is still in possession of the legal heirs of late Haji Ch. Lal Din. The acquisition of the land is under challenge and the suit has been decreed vide judgment dated 24-11-1996 in favour of legal heirs of the deceased Haji Lal Din. The decree has been challenged by respondents No.3/LDA by filing an appeal.
4. Respondent No.4 in its reply and parawise comments has asserted that the land has not been handed over to it for the purpose of development of a park. Respondent No.4/PHA cannot by itself convert a premises into a park unless formal possession is delivered by respondent No.3. Respondent No.3 has denied that there is any proposal for conversion of the premises of park for any other use.
5. Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. The land claimed to be reserved for park is a private land, the acquisition whereof has been challenged by respondent No.5 and a decree of a Court of competent jurisdiction in favour of respondent No.5 has been passed. The appeal against the decree is pending in the Court of Mr. Sultan Ahmad, Additional District Judge, Lahore. No park can be developed at a disputed place unless the controversy is resolved. The matter is pending before a Court of competent jurisdiction. Respondent No.5 has levelled serious allegation against the petitioner and has submitted that act of filing of the instant petition is sheer blackmailing. No direction can be issued to respondent unless the litigation between respondents Nos.3 and 5 is concluded.
6. This petition is devoid of any force and is dismissed. H.B.T./A-247/L Petition dismissed.