2006 PLP 235 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD HAJRA KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 5 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 235 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HAJRA KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 5 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 235 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Contempt of Court Act (LXIV of 1976) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 235 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 235 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD HAJRA KHAN — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 5 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss. 3 & 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitutional petition---Contempt of Court---Constitutional petition was disposed of and petitioner had filed application under Contempt of Court Act, 1976 on the ground that order passed by High Court in constitutional petition had not been complied with---On the day, petition was disposed of counsel for respondents had made certain statements to compensate petitioner and in pursuance thereof, petitioner was informed about terms of compensation---Petitioner had filed objection to such decision---Petitioner had no right and title to property in question as he failed to deposit transfer fee as directed by Board of Revenue, but despite that he was being adequately compensated by the respondents---Question of any contempt did not arise; it was up to petitioner to accept the offer or otherwise---Petitioner had submitted that said amount be ordered to be paid to the Trust directly---Said proposition having been agreed to, application was disposed of accordingly.
- M. Amin Memon for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3 & 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Constitutional petition was disposed of and petitioner had filed application under Contempt of Court Act, 1976 on the ground that order passed by High Court in constitutional petition had not been complied with
On the day, petition was disposed of counsel for respondents had made certain statements to compensate petitioner and in pursuance thereof, petitioner was informed about terms of compensation
Petitioner had filed objection to such decision
Petitioner had no right and title to property in question as he failed to deposit transfer fee as directed by Board of Revenue, but despite that he was being adequately compensated by the respondents
Question of any contempt did not arise; it was up to petitioner to accept the offer or otherwise
Petitioner had submitted that said amount be ordered to be paid to the Trust directly
Said proposition having been agreed to, application was disposed of accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
C.M.A. No.1710 of 2004 This is a disposed of petition. The listed application under the Contempt of Court Act has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that the order dated 15-1-2004 has not been complied with. On the day, the petition was disposed of Mr. Manzoor Ahmed had made certain statement to compensate the petitioner and in pursuance thereof, vide letter dated 28-8-2004 (placed on record by Mr. Manzoor Ahmed) the petitioner was informed about the terms of compensation. The petitioner filed objection to such decision. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed submitted that the petitioner has no right and title to the property in question. He referred to the counter-affidavit filed by his client which shows that the petitioner failed to deposit Rs.15,810, transfer fee, as directed by the Board of Revenue. He contended that the lease being for 80 years stood already expired on 31-7-1995 and the same was neither extended nor any payment for that purpose was made by the petitioner. Notwithstanding this fact, per Court order and the undertaking given by him in Court, his client agreed to compensate the petitioner as mentioned in the aforesaid letter. We have considered the contentions of the learned counsel and find that the petitioner has no right or title to the said property and he was being compensated by the respondents adequately, therefore, question of any contempt does not arise. It is up to the petitioner to accept the offer or otherwise. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the aforesaid amount be ordered to be paid to the Trust directly. Mr. Manzoor agreed to this proposition. The application is disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./M-6/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.