1989 SCMR 1527 (PLP)
WAQAR ALI ZAFAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989 SCMR 1527 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | WAQAR ALI ZAFAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 SCMR 1527 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 SCMR 1527 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 SCMR 1527 (PLP) (WAQAR ALI ZAFAR and others‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- SAbid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 12th July, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30 November, 1980 m Writ Petition No.10189 of 1980). West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act (VII of 1956) ‑‑‑S.3‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.185(3) & 199‑‑Requisition of property‑‑High Court in exercise of writ jurisdiction had not involved itself in an inquiry as to whether or not property in dispute was lying vacant at time of requisition and that such a controversy could only be determined by a Court of plenary jurisdiction‑‑Civil suit of petitioners against impugned order was pending decision in Civil Court which was competent to determine the question as to whether property in dispute was lying vacant at the time of its requisition or it was under the actual occupation of petitioners‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑In this petition for leave to appeal the petitioners have challenged the order of learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 30 November, 1980. Briefly the facts are that the disputed property was requisitioned under section 3 of the Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act 1956 by the Commissioner Rawalpindi vide his order, dated 18 June, 1980. The petitioners challenged the aforesaid order by way of writ petition contending that the impugned order could not be passed as the petitioners were in actual occupation of the disputed property. The same argument has been advanced before us by the learned counsel for the petitioners who has raised an additional argument to the effect that the house in question was an incomplete house which reamed further construction. This argument does not figure in the High Court judgment and has not even been raised in this form as is apparent from communication dated 9 July, 1980 at page 16 of the paper book. Be that as it may the writ petition was dismissed for the reason that the report and parawise comments submitted by the respondents indicated that the disputed property was rightly requisitioned as it was lying vacant. Since the High Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction could not involve itself in an inquiry as to whether or not property in dispute was lying vacant at the time of requisition and that since such a controversy could only be determined by a Court of plenary jurisdiction, it was justified in dismissing the writ petition. Learned counsel has pointed out that the civil suit of the petitioners against the impugned order of the Commissioner was still pending decision in the civil Court. If it is so pending then the civil Court is competent to determine the question as to whether the property in dispute was lying vacant at the time of its requisition or it was under the actual occupation of l the petitioners. With this observation the petition is dismissed. M.A.K./W‑54/S Petition dismissed.