2002 PLP 1852 (CLC)
PRINCE FLYING COACH, FAISALABAD through Proprietor and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1852 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | PRINCE FLYING COACH, FAISALABAD through Proprietor and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1852 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1852 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1852 (CLC) (PRINCE FLYING COACH, FAISALABAD through Proprietor and 2 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD IQBAL and 8 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ahmad Waheed Khan for Appellants.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.‑G. and Badar‑ul‑Ameer for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 28th March, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3‑‑ Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Authorities had totally denied construction of bus stand over the green belt which had polluted environmental atmosphere and stated that land in question was State land which earlier was in possession of Irrigation Department for use of silting Tank‑‑‑Land in dispute, according to Revenue Record was owned by the Provincial Government‑‑‑Issue as to whether construction of bus stand over the land in dispute had polluted environmental atmosphere and had frustrated use of green belt, was a disputed question of fact resolution whereof would entail a detailed enquiry‑‑‑Jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) would not be attracted and it would be for the Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner concerned to decide the said issue by giving opportunity of hearing to the parties‑‑‑Appeal against the order of High Court was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑ This appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chamber, dated 3‑7‑2000 passed in Writ Petition No.13515 of 1993. The relevant portion of the judgment, with which the appellant is aggrieved, is reproduced as under:‑‑ As far as the stance taken by certain petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos.13515 of 1997 and 22054 of 1997 to the construction of stands at Abdullahpur Rakh Branch Canal over the green belt is concerned that has been totally denied by the respondents. It is stated by the respondents in their comments that it was a State land which was earlier in their possession of Irrigation Department for the use of silting tank. This land according to the Revenue Record was owned by the Provincial Government. Even otherwise the issue whether the establishment of stands at Abdullahpur Rakh Branch Canal has polluted the environmental atmosphere and has frustrated the use of green belt is a disputed question of fact resolution whereof would entail a detailed enquiry as such, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 would not be attracted and it would be for the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division being the administrative head or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, to decide this issue by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned (d) Commissioner, Faisalabad Division shall also look into the grievance whether the site utilized for buses/coaches stands at Rakh Branch Canal Abdullahpur is polluting the environmental conditions atmosphere of the area. He shall also ensure that the Green Belt is not misused and its character should be kept intac, for the benefit of general public."
2. In our opinion, the aforesaid order is very fair and in any event does not cause any prejudice to the appellant. In the circumstances we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed. H.B.T./P‑99/L Appeal dismissed.