P L D 2006 Lahore 329 (PLP)
IRFAN AHMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 2006 Lahore 329 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IRFAN AHMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance (IX of 1966) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2006 Lahore 329 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance (IX of 1966) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2006 Lahore 329 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2006 Lahore 329 (PLP) (IRFAN AHMAD KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shahzad Shaukat for Petitioners.
- Umar Sharif, Advocate/Standing Counsel for Pakistan Railways, Faisal Khan AEN/DS Workshop and Mehtab Hashim Head Workshop Pakistan Railways for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 5
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.4 & 199
Constitutional petition
Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law
Petitioners, claiming to be the occupants of shops on the basis of purported tenancy agreements in their favour by the Authorities were aggrieved of the sealing of the said shops by and at the instance of Authorities and filed constitutional petition for a direction from the High Court to de-seal the said shops
Contention of the petitioners was that there was no law authorizing the sealing of the shops in the manner the same had been done by the Authorities, who could at the most invoke the provisions of S.5 of West Pakistan Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966, which provided that for the eviction of unauthorized occupants an order in writing was to be made directing such person to vacate the land/building within the specified period failing which the process for recovery of possession envisaged by S.5(2) of the Ordinance was invocable
Such procedure however, was not adopted by the Authorities
Authorities did not seem to be conscious of the same
Held, to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law was the inalienable right of every citizen as was enshrined in Art.4 of the Constitution
Occupation of the petitioners of the shops was admitted, thus any action depriving them of the use or occupation thereof must have the backing of contemporaneous law otherwise action would be wholly unwarranted by law and indeed violative of the provisions of Art.4 of the Constitution
Sealing of shops by and at the instance of the Authorities was wholly unwarranted which could not be countenanced
High Court declared the action of sealing of the shops as illegal and without lawful authority and Authorities were directed to de-seal the shops forthwith
High Court observed that order of the Court would not impede or deter the Authorities from proceedings in the matter in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.
The petitioners claiming to be the occupants of shops on the basis of purported tenancy agreements in their favour from respondent No.9 are aggrieved of the sealing of the said shops by and at the instance of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 and have filed the present petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for a direction to de-'seal the said shops. Parawise comments have been filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to
8. The very authority of respondent No.9 of leasing out the shops has been disputed. It is pleaded that the lessee is Shalimar Hospital whose management had warned respondent No.9 not to construct illegal shops and also wrote to Pakistan Railways for appropriate action against the committee of respondent No.9. The learned counsel for the parties have been heard. The learned counsel for the petitioners has, without conceding the stance of respondents No.1 to 8, pointed out that there is no law authorizing the sealing of the shops in the manner it has been done by respondents Nos. 1 to
8. According to him the said respondents could at the most invoke the provisions of section 5 of West Pakistan Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966 (Ordinance IX of 1966). The perusal of the said provision of law shows that for the eviction of unauthorized occupants an order in writing is to be made directing such person to vacate the land/building within the specified period failing which the process for recovery of possession A envisaged by subsection (2) thereof is invokable. This procedure however, was not adopted nor followed by respondents Nos. 1 to
8. They do not seem to be conscious of the same. It may be observed that to enjoy the protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is the inalienable right of every citizen as is enshrined by Article 4 the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Since the occupation of the petitioners of the shops was admitted any action depriving them of the use or occupation thereof must have the backing of contemporaneous law otherwise action would be wholly unwarranted by law and indeed violative of the provisions of Article 4 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Sealing of the shops by and at the instance of respondents Nos. 1 to 8 thus was wholly unwarranted which cannot be countenanced. In view of the above, declaring the action of sealing of the shops as illegal and without lawful authority the respondents Nos.1 to 8 are directed to de-seal the shops forthwith. It is however, observed that this order will not impede or deter the respondents Nos. 1 to 8 from proceedings in the matter in accordance with law. The petition is accepted accordingly with the above observations. No order as to costs. M.B.A./I-19/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.