2010 PLP 3079 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD TARIQ and others — Petitioners Versus CHAIRMAN/CIVIL MEMBER BAC and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 3079 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Nasir Saeed Sheikh and Mian Shahid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD TARIQ and others — Petitioners Versus CHAIRMAN/CIVIL MEMBER BAC and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Border Area Regulations, 1959 [MLR No.9] |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 3079 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Border Area Regulations, 1959 [MLR No.9] as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 3079 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Nasir Saeed Sheikh and Mian Shahid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 3079 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD TARIQ and others — Petitioners Versus CHAIRMAN/CIVIL MEMBER BAC and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioners.
- Amir Zahoor Chohan for Respondent No.1/Border Area Committee.
Headnotes / Summary
Paras. 4 & 9
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Allotment of land under Border Area Scheme
Counsel for the petitioners had contended that petitioners who had major shares in the subject land had not been heard properly
Counsel for the Border Area Committee had submitted that notices were issued to the petitioners, but they did not appear
Counsel for the respondent Border Area Committee, however was not in possession of any document showing service of notices upon the petitioners--Impugned order having been passed against the petitioners without hearing them, in the interest of justice, said order to the extent of the petitioners, was set aside, with direction that Border Area Committee would hear the petitioners and after providing them necessary opportunity of hearing, would decide the case afresh in accordance with law expeditiously.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR SAEED SHEIKH, J.
The learned counsel for the petitioners does not want to press this constitutional petition on behalf of petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 and to the extent of those petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 the writ petition is dismissed as not pressed.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 who have major shares with respect to the subject land have not been heard properly. The learned counsel for the respondent/Border Area Committee was directed by this Court vide order dated 15-3-2010 to intimate specifically as to which of the petitioners were provided hearing by the Border Area Committee. The learned counsel for the Border Area Committee has submitted that notices were issued to petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 but they did not appear. Further the learned counsel for the respondent/Border Area Committee is not in possession of any document showing service of the notices upon the petitioners Nos. 1 and
4. In the interest of justice, as the order dated 16-12-2008 has been passed against the petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 without hearing them, we set aside the impugned order dated 16-12-2008 to the extent of petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 only and direct that the Border Area Committee shall hear the petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 and after providing them necessary opportunity of hearing, decide the case afresh in accordance with law expeditiously. The petitioners Nos. 1 and 4 shall appear before the Border Area Committee on 18.5.2010 without any further notice.
4. This writ petition stands disposed of with no orders as to costs. H.B.T./M-325/L Order accordingly.