1985 PLP 2857 (CLC)
HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB — Petitioner Versus Mirza MUHAMMAD HANIF and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 2857 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB — Petitioner Versus Mirza MUHAMMAD HANIF and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 2857 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 2857 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 2857 (CLC) (HIGHWAY DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB — Petitioner Versus Mirza MUHAMMAD HANIF and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Muhammad Tufail Khan for Petitioner.
- Kh. Ibrar Majal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S.13--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199--Private property given on rent to Government--Application for eviction--Tenancy proved by Courts below--Order of eviction passed against Government/tenant--Refusal of Government to vacate property or to pay for its possession, held, was brazen disregard of right of property of citizen--Relationship between State and citizen in civilised community demanded that State should vacate its unlawful possession of property of citizen, rather than seek writ to continue illegal occupation.
Judgment & Decree
The Highway Department, Government of Punjab, the petitioners are in occupation of a strip of land on the river Ravi near Lahore and have set up a store there. Mirza Muhammad Hanif, respondent who claims to be the owner of two Kanals four Marlas of this land has obtained the orders of eviction dated 18-5-1983. The petitioners challenged these orders in appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, but the appeal was dismissed on 28-7-1983. The Highway Department has now invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It has been urged that Muhammad Hanif respondent possesses no title to the property and that the Rent Contr'bller had no jurisdiction to order the eviction of the petitioners as tenancy was not proved. 2.? The two Courts below are agreed that the land belongs to the respondent who acquired interest in it vide registered sale-deed P.1 and that the owner of the property had agreed to give the property on rent to the Highway Department. For this purpose reliance was placed on correspondence between the Exe utive Engineer and the mouth of the Sub Divisional Officer P. 2 and P.3. Highway, Department to cla mo that the orders of the Rent Controller were illegal.
3. Admittedly the property .does not belong to the Highway Department. They are no doubt in possession of it, but without any warrant of possession. The land is privately owned but a Govt. Department refuses to vacate it or pay for its possession. This is in brazen disregard of the right of property of the citizen. The relations between the State and the citizen in a civilised community demand that the State vacates its unlawful possession of the property of the citizen, rather than seek a writ to continue the illegal occupation. In view of the above considerations there is no merit in the writ petition. It is dismissed. The petitioners are, however, allowed a period of two months to hand over the vacant possession of the property to the respondent. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T.????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.