2002 PLP 1527 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1527 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed and Wahid Bux Brohi, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1527 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1527 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed and Wahid Bux Brohi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1527 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Saeed and Sham Das for Petitioner.
- Raja Qureshi, A.‑G. for Respondents Nos. 1, 3 and 4.
- Manzoor Ahmed for Respondent No.2.
- S.A. Jalib Chaudhry for Respondent No.5
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.8 & 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Dispute relating to title of premises‑‑‑Dispossession of occupants‑‑‑Mere existence of a dispute as to ownership or even a claim as to title of premises, would not authorize any one to take forcible possession of said premises‑‑‑Action of forcible possession of premises, was struck down by High Court as without lawful authority, restraining Authorities from taking any action against occupants of premises except in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑‑Learned Advocate‑General has very candidly placed the respective position taken up by the parties with respect to ownership of the land in question. Apparently the respondent No.2 have claimed ownership of the property and have stated that it was leased out to one Ram Krishna Mission under a temporary lease dated 9‑2‑1994 and vide a resolution of the respondent No.2, dated 2‑2‑1998 the aforesaid respondent has already approved the exception (sic) of removal of a lease in favour of the petitioner. Nevertheless the lease deed has not been executed so far because of Government approval of the resolution is still awaited. On the other hand the respondent No. l have asserted that the land in question did not vest in the respondent No.2 but was Government Land under Article 172 of the Constitution. No entries from Revenue Record, however, have been produced and it is contended that the land in question was unserved. Be that as it may, it appears that there is a dispute relating to title of land which cannot appropriately be resolved in these proceedings. The fact nevertheless regained that the mere existence of a dispute as to ownership or even a claim as to title does not authorise the respondents Nos.3 and 4 to take forcible possession of the premises. In the circumstances we would allow this petition and declare the questioned acts of the respondents Nos.3 and 4 to be without lawful authority and of no legal affect. They are restrained from taking any action against the petitioner and respondent No.5 except in accordance with law and they are informed that in case they proceed to take the law into their own hands they might be personally liable for repercussions. The petition stands disposed of in the above term. The rent deposited in Court by the respondent No.5 may be withdrawn by the petitioner. The parties are at liberty to move the appropriate Courts for vindication of their claims to title and this order will not affect any relief granted by the proper Court. H.B /M‑342/K Petition allowed.