1983 PLP 732 (SCMR)
MIAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN — Respondent
| Citation | 1983 PLP 732 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | -- Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-Controverted questions of fact-Held, cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9..--Question of fact. |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MIAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) . |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 732 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) . as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 732 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the -- Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-Controverted questions of fact-Held, cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9..--Question of fact. bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 732 (SCMR) (MIAN MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus THE MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmed Khan, A. A.-G. for Respondent.
- Date of hearing : 9th February, 1983.
- Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Tanvir Ahmed Khan, A. A.‑G. for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14th December, 1982 in Writ Petition No. 3498 of 1982). -- Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-Controverted questions of fact-Held, cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9..--[Question of fact].
Judgment & Decree
Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners. Tanvir Ahmed Khan, A. A.‑G. for Respondent. Date of hearing : 9th February, 1983. SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑The petitioners who are in occupation of shops at one time claimed by the Municipal Committee, Khushab, seek leave to appeal against the judgment in limine of the Lahore High Court whereby their cons titutional petition was dismissed. The petitioners claimed to have obtained on rent sites in Gulistan Babar Khushab. They also claimed to have constructed shops over it and to have beets paying rent for the premises to the Municipal Committee. Subsequently the. Government of the Punjab claimed ownership of the site and the shops and thereupon the petitioners started paying rent to the Government. The Municipal Committee passed a resolution whereby these shops were to be demolished and a bus stand is to be constructed 'there. The petitioners chal lenged this action by constitutional petition which has been dismissed on the ground inter alia that proceedings are taken place under M. L. O.
821. The right of the Municipal Committee to evict the petitioners was found not to be lacking in view of the earlier tenancy agreement between the petitioners and the Municipal Committee. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if at all the pro ceedings under M. L. O.821 were pending they were against only two of the petitioners, that is, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and not against others and that such proceedings should not have barred constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Further it is contended that there was a dispute regarding title between the Municipal Committee and the Government of the Punjab and unless it is resolved in favour of the Municipal Committee the latter could not proceed with a scheme of bus stand. We find that the status of the petitioners as tenants, trespassers or licensees) is in dispute. It is a controverted question of fact. Such a question cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Without pre judging the issues on facts the petitioners should have been directed to seek their remedy in the civil Court in accordance with the law. Constitutional Petition on such a subject was not, in any case competent. We do not find any merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused. Petition dismissed.