1998 PLP 2051 (SCMR)
PESHAWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director‑General and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NOOR HABIB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1998 PLP 2051 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ |
| Parties | PESHAWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director‑General and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NOOR HABIB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1.877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1998 PLP 2051 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1.877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1998 PLP 2051 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Ilahi Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1998 PLP 2051 (SCMR) (PESHAWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director‑General and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus NOOR HABIB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Akhtar Ali, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 14th November, 1995
- 3. In support of the above petition Sardar Akhtar Ali, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the petitioners, is unable to point out any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the three Courts below as to warrant A grant of leave. The fact that the above respondents had purchased the wall for the aforesaid sum stands proved. The objection, which was raised by the petitioners, was found to be not sustainable by the Courts below. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 15‑6‑1995 of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, passed in Civil Revision No. 16 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for declaration and permanent injunction decreed by Courts below including the High Court‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Petitioners (defendants) were unable to point out any legal infirmity in findings recorded by three Courts below as to warrant grant of leave‑‑‑Fact that plaintiffs had purchased property in question for specified amount, stood proved‑‑‑Objection raised by defendants was found to be not sustainable by Courts below‑‑‑Petition for leave to appeal had no merits‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15-6-1995 of the Peshawar High Court passed in Civil Revision No. 16 of 1994 filed by the petitioners against the concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below decreeing respondents Nos. l to 8 suit for declaration cum permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession of the City wall described in the annexed plans as 'A' and 'B' measuring 180 sq feet, hereinafter referred to as the wall, dismissing the same by affirming the above concurrent judgments/decrees.
2. The brief facts are that respondents Nos.1 to 8/plaintiffs purchased the wall for a sum of Rs.43,567 on 20-7-1987 from the Provincial Government. When the above respondents submitted plan for the construction of building on the site of the wall, the same was refused by the petitioners on the ground that it was a historical building having an archaeological feature. This was resisted by above respondents. They inter alia filed a suit, which was decreed in spite of contest by the petitioners. It was found that factually the wall was constructed in the year 1935 and, therefore, it had no historical or archaeological importance. The appeal and the revision also failed. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition Sardar Akhtar Ali, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the petitioners, is unable to point out any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the three Courts below as to warrant A grant of leave. The fact that the above respondents had purchased the wall for the aforesaid sum stands proved. The objection, which was raised by the petitioners, was found to be not sustainable by the Courts below. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused. A.A./P-16/S Leave refused