Property rights
Property rights legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Valuable property rights must not be allowed to be negated, unless law clearly and expressly stipulates that such rights would expire with efflux of time
No person can be compulsorily deprived of his property rights save in accordance with law
Right to hold and dispose of property envisaged in Art. 23 of the Constitution would be vitiated if a person's right to property is declared in such manner that another who is not entitled thereto become its owner.
Merely relying on fundamental rights does not suffice for they are not absolute and do not draw a distinction on the basis of past transactions
Such rights cannot be abridged if the Legislature does not clearly express the intention of undoing past and closed transactions so as to take away those rights as well
Unless this is done, rights guaranteed by Arts. 4, 23 & 24 of the Constitution protect the transactions and keep them inviolate.
There was no legal impediment in the way to seek removal of any restriction placed on the property purchased by petitioner from an accused, who succeeded in earning an acquittal from Trial Court and that was maintained by High Court in appeal
When final judgment in Trial Court was announced, restriction under S. 23 of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, had come to an end and become inoperative
Acquitted accused was free to transfer property in question in exercise of his rights guaranteed by Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution
High Court declined to refuse a relief to petitioner in absence of any order passed by Supreme Court restricting transfer of property, merely on the assertion that NAB had filed petition for leave to appeal
High Court directed respondent to remove restriction placed on property in question, enter name of petitioner in his official record and provide him a copy of GLR in accordance with law
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
It was duty of functionaries of the Sate to ensure that rights of citizens, particularly the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution should not be trodden or denied
Compensation to be paid to land owner in year 2009/2010 had not been done and the land owner had already suffered a lot on account of non-payment of compensation to him
Delinquent officers in National Highway Authority/Revenue Department were responsible for making losses sustained by/caused to land owner
Compensation had already been paid to other land owners, whose lands were acquired for same public construction project
Non-payment of compensation to petitioner/land owner was act of discrimination
High Court directed acquiring agency/revenue department for expeditious compensation to petitioner/ land owner regarding his acquired land with the benefit of compound interest under S. 34 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Dispute regarding ownership and possession of property, even when involving rights of a woman, entails adjudication of legal rights and obligations which can only be undertaken by a Court exercising judicial powers in compliance with the requirement of Art. 10A of the Constitution
It is only a Court and not a quasi-judicial authority that can issue binding decisions determining civil rights of citizens or imposing penalties on them
It is only Courts that can seek enforcement of their decisions through exercise of coercive authority of the State.
Petitioner was aggrieved of sale of his vehicle and removal of air conditioners by respondent authorities in execution of orders passed by Ombudsman
Validity
Ombudsman, conceptually, is a part of the Executive and is vested with authority by the Executive to review exercise of authority by executive functionaries and determine whether or not such exercise amounts to maladministration
Where an act or omission amounts to maladministration, Ombudsman makes recommendation to relevant executive authority and as a matter of propriety, policy and practice the recommendation is given effect
High Court declared that provision of Ss. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 & 11 of Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020 and Ss. 10(ii) & 12 of Federal Ombudsman Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, were ultra vires Arts. 8, 9, 10A, 23, 24, 175, 202, 203 and 204 of the Constitution and were void ab initio
When provisions were declared un-constitutional, there was nothing that remained within Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020 that could be preserved to enable the Ombudsman to continue to discharge any useful function under Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020, in a constitutional manner
High Court directed that all matters already decided by Ombudsman pursuant to provisions of Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020, against which no representations were filed before the President and all matters in which representations were filed and decided, such that the matters had attained finality would be treated as past and closed transactions
High Court directed that all matters which were pending before Ombudsman pursuant to Enforcement of Women's Property Rights Act, 2020, and in which decisions of Ombudsman were challenged through representations filed before the President and which representations had not been decided, shall be returned to complainants who filed complaints before Ombudsman, while issuing notice to the contesting party; and the complainants would be free to initiate legal proceedings in relation to their complaints before courts of competent jurisdiction
High Court declared that the manner in which auction of petitioner's vehicle was undertaken by the Office of Deputy Commissioner was devoid of legal authority and stood annulled
High Court directed Office of Excise and Taxation Department to revert title of the vehicle in the name of petitioner
High Court further directed respondent / auction purchaser to return the vehicle to petitioner subject to return of amount paid as consideration for the vehicle and further paid by the Office of Deputy Commissioner to respondent / complainant
As the petitioner was in wrongful possession of property of respondent / complainant, the amount generated by auction of vehicle paid by office of Deputy Commissioner to respondent / complainant in lieu of rent for possession of respondent / complainant's property by petitioner shall be treated as a past and closed transaction on grounds of equity
High Court further directed Office of Deputy Commissioner to hand over to petitioner forthwith any other electronic devices such as air conditioners owned by petitioner and taken into possession by the Office of Deputy Commissioner pursuant to orders and directions of Ombudsman
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Petitioner was convicted and sentenced to imprisonment by Trial Court and house owned by her husband was declared as sub-jail, wherein she was confined to undergo her sentence of imprisonment
Notification declaring sub-jail was issued by Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory
Petitioner/convict assailed her confinement in house declared as sub-jail
Validity
House of husband of petitioner/convict was designated as sub-jail through notification issued under S. 541, Cr.P.C., but such place could not be categorized as a "prison" for the purposes of Prisons Act, 1894
By declaring house of husband of petitioner/convict as a sub-jail, the State took over possession of that property
Authorities did not obtain consent of owner of the house before its declaration as a sub-jail
Even authorities did not pay any compensation to owner of the house for declaring it as a sub-jail
Such wanton usurpation of private property with no compensation was violative of Art. 24(2) of the Constitution
High Court set aside the notification issued by Chief Commissioner, Islamabad Capital Territory, declaring a private property as sub-jail only for the purposes of confining therein the petitioner/convict, as the same was without lawful authority and of no legal effect
High Court directed the authorities to transfer petitioner/convict to jail to serve sentence awarded to her by Trial Court
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Any asset, estate or property which comes to ownership of Muslim as ascendant or descendant, sharer or distant kinder or inheritor according to Principles of Islam such land is vested to a Muslim without any restriction or embargo for its utilization or on disposal of such land
Any regional usage or customs and tradition, if any, is inconsequential and ineffective regarding such right and authority.
Petitioners / taxpayers sought striking down of S.4C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, on the plea that charging section could not be retrospective in nature
Contention of authorities was that protected right created vide S.4B of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, stood impliedly superseded with retrospective effect by insertion of S.4C in Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Validity
There was a clearly expressed statutorily protected right in respect of super tax, created in favor of tax payer
Under no stroke of interpretation, even strained, strict or convoluted, the benefit stood diminished
Tax payers availed benefit for two years so far and nothing was demonstrated before High Court to consider them disentitled to remaining period
Provision of S.4C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, merited in the scenario whereby authorities claimed that rights subsisting vide S.4B of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, had been vitiated vide S.4C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, notwithstanding manifest absence of any express legislative intent to such effect
Super tax was to be recovered from every person, subject to qualifying quantum of income, on the basis delineated in the identified schedule
Relevant schedule precluded recovery of super tax from every person for a period inclusive of tax year 2022
There was a manifest inconsistency with S.4C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which sought to recover super tax for the tax year 2022
Levy under S.4C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was on the income of every person and differentiation in respect of quantum of income was determinant factor for application of the designated tax rate
Higher the level of income the higher was the incidence of taxation intended
Similar treatment was accorded under S.4B of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, which was reasonable having a nexus with the objective of the levy
Constitution had conferred fundamental rights upon citizens with respect to property, per Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution
Such rights could not be abridged by measures determined to be discriminatory
Proviso could not survive test of intelligible differentia, as it could not be demonstrated that imposition of a two hundred and fifty percent (250%) higher rate of super tax was based on any intelligible differentia, having nexus with the purpose of the law
Super tax levied once again vide S.4C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be recovered during subsistence of benefit / protection granted to the tax payer vide S.4B of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Only avenue to save conflicting provisions of law was to harmonize the same
Provision of 1st proviso to Division IIB of Part I of the First Schedule to Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was discriminatory as there was no intelligible differentia therein, having rational nexus with the object of classification
Provision of S. 4C of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was read to reflect that the levy would be applicable from the tax year 2023
High Court declared provision of 1st proviso to Division IIB of Part I of the First Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, as discriminatory and ultra vires to the Constitution
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Petitioners claimed to be owners of plots allotted to them on the basis of registered documents and had sought vacant and physical possession from respondent Authorities
Validity
Documents relied upon by petitioners were not controverted or challenged by respondents through some subsequent official acts or documents
Every fact in its para-wise comments were denied by respondent authorities but without substantiating it with documentary evidence
All the documents so relied upon were in fact official record of respondent authorities
Presumption of genuineness and authenticity was attached to those documents, as envisaged in Arts. 90, 92 & 93 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, besides, Art. 129(e) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, was also applicable to registered Lease Deed, Addenda Deed and the Acknowledgment of Possession Order in respect of the subject land
Petitioners were deprived from using and enjoying their respective plots
Fundamental rights of petitioners to own, use and enjoy their property, as envisaged in Arts. 23 & 24 of the Constitution, were violated
High Court declared that petitioners were lawful and bona fide allottees of their respective plots
High Court directed respondent authorities to immediately vacate entire subject land and to hand over possession of the same to Karachi Development Authority, which would give possession to lawful and bona fide allottees/petitioners, after fulfilling codal formalities
High Court further directed that if subject land was required by respondent authorities or any other Government functionary, then the same should be acquired in accordance with law, by paying market value to petitioners
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Plaintiff company claimed that its installation was Key Point Installation Category I-A and had sought restriction upon defendants not to raise structure/construction over their land within a distance of 200 Sq. Yds. from plaintiff's installation, under the provisions of rule 10 of Civil Defense (Special Powers) Rules, 1951
Validity
Federal Government could impose in terms of R. 10 of Civil Defense (Special Powers) Rules, 1951, condition only for the purposes of rendering building of adjacent land owner more secured and protected for persons using the same
Defendants were not precluded from using their land in pursuance of R. 10 of Civil Defense (Special Powers) Rules, 1951, however reasonable restriction for security and safety of the occupants were to be adhered to
Such restrictions could not be arbitrary and fanciful and that such restriction would not be of such magnitude as would materially render and disentitle neighboring land owners from utilizing their land in accordance with law as it would then be in violation of Arts. 4, 23 & 24 of the Constitution
Suit was dismissed, in circumstances.
While determining market value of acquired land through compulsory acquisition process, fundamental right of land owners as enshrined in Art. 24 of the Constitution has been made subservient to Land Acquisition Act, 1894
Through such process, a citizen has been pushed to a disadvantageous position
With such background of transaction, land owner has every right that he / they may be compensated on the basis of phenomenon of "gold for gold and not copper for gold".
Plea raised by petitioner was that land in question was decreed in her favour which decree was not assailed by authorities
Validity
One could not blow hot and cold in the same breath i.e. approbate and reprobate and on the basis of principle of estoppel
Once decree was passed and remained unchallenged, it had attained finality, therefore, claim of petitioner was admitted in terms of degree of Civil Court and report of Patwari was in negation of claim of authorities
For setting up of claim about 'state land' authorities were required not only to assail decree of Civil Court but also of Referee Court, especially when possession of property was handed over to petitioner
Petitioner was required to have been associated with any proceedings conducted by authorities for holding it to be a state land
If authorities were in need of that particular piece of land, they could get it but in accordance with provisions of the Constitution
Authorities could not be allowed to usurp property of petitioner, to dispossess her or infringe her fundamental and statutory rights that too in violation of law of land
Authorities were duty bound to act in accordance with law and petitioner was entitled to be treated in consonance with law
High Court declared notification in question to be illegal, against the law, in violation of fundamental rights of petitioner and basic statutory provisions affecting the rights of petitioner
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Power of eminent domain is inherent attribute of sovereignty of a State, which derives such power because of its dominion over land within its jurisdiction
Private property rights are not absolute and based on principle that public rights take precedence over private rights.
Army authorities claimed ownership over area in question and had also been involved in commercial activities over that area at their own without any authority from Federal Government
Validity
Army authorities could neither own or acquire nor manage land given for its use otherwise than as provided under the Constitution and relevant laws
Land was allocated by Federal Government for a particular and declared use of branches of Armed Forces
Land remains the ownership of Federal Government or Provincial Government, as the case was
Nature or character of land allocated for use of Armed Forces could not be changed without express permission of Federal Government
After the land was no more used for the purpose for which it had been allocated then it would revert to Federal Government or Provincial Government, as the case was
Pakistan Army nor any other branch of Armed Forces could claim ownership of land allocated by Federal Government for its use
Army could not claim any compensation in the eventuality of reversion of allocated land when it was no more used for allotted purpose
Claim of Authorities regarding land in notified National Park area, was in violation of Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979 read with Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 and the Master Plan
Such claim was also not in conformity with enforced laws applicable to management of lands for use of Armed Forces
Federal Government was bereft of jurisdiction to allow Authorities to use land in notified National Park area
Authorities did not have jurisdiction nor any authority to own, use or keep in possession any land within notified National Park area
Authorities had no jurisdiction or authority to execute any agreement with a Restaurant and rent so recovered was also without lawful authority and jurisdiction
High Court directed Secretary, Ministry of Defenceto ensure that rent received by Authorities was recovered and deposited in exchequer
Lease agreement of Restaurant in question with Capital Development Authority had expired and its agreement with Army Authorities was void and without any legal effect
High Court directed Capital Development Authority and Islamabad Wildlife Management Board to take over possession of Restaurant in question
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Martial Law Administrator of NWFP did not offer or provide opportunity to petitioners to be heard, who were condemned unheard
Petitioners were interested party to a dispute directly related with the order so passed vide Martial Law Order No. 425, dated 19-04-1984
Act of Martial Law Administrator was against principles of Islamic Law
Federal Shariat Court declared that Martial Law Order No. 425, dated 19-04-1984 was against the injunctions of Islam
Shariat petition was allowed accordingly.
Where State has responsibility to prosecute and procure punishment of a guilty person it also has equal responsibility that citizen is not denied from exercising or enjoying rights over his/her property, as enshrined in the Constitution.
Petitioners were having lease agreements in their favour executed by Federal Government and the Government sought their eviction from Rent Controller on the plea of raising commercial buildings
Validity
Tenants had perpetual right in demised shops under the agreements with Federal Government and whenever the government decided to launch any commercial project by demolishing the property in question, the rights of tenants under existing agreement were to be protected and no effort should be made to wriggle out of the contractual obligations except in accordance with law
Tenants were to be properly informed with relevant material details of any proposed action
Landlord had filed cases in the Court of Additional Rent Controller despite the fact that he had no jurisdiction and then tried to subvert entire trial in the name of S. 19(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 which was a mala fide attempt to deprive tenants from their Constitutionally guaranteed lawful right in demised shops
High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside eviction orders passed by Rent Controller
Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Once a document is registered then it can only be cancelled by another registered document or through a declaration of competent court of law
One cannot be deprived of its ownership rights in respect of land lawfully owned and/or holding of its lawful possession except in due course of law.
Petitioners claimed to be owner of subject land and were aggrieved of orders passed by authorities whereby they were forcibly dispossessed from subject land
Validity
Adverse action was taken by authorities against petitioners without affording opportunity of hearing to them
Petitioners were not only entitled to get back possession of property in question but were also deserved to be permitted to again raise construction of demolished boundary wall at subject land
Action of dispossession of petitioners by authorities and demolishing boundary wall raised by them was not only illegal but was taken at instigation of respondents
Order passed by authorities was without justification, mala fide and void ab initio
Stand of respondent regarding ownership and/or location of survey number where subject land was situated was not only self-conflicting but also self-destructive
Such stand led to a presumption that respondent had no genuine case
High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction set aside orders passed by authorities and declared that all such actions taken/orders passed by authorities pursuant to such orders were mala fide, illegal without jurisdiction and of no legal effect
High Court directed the authorities to give peaceful possession of subject land to petitioners
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
No unreasonable restriction can be placed on exercise of right of landlord which would offend fundamental rights guaranteed under. Art. 23 of the Constitution
Initial burden for landlord to prove bona fide is very light and court is required to consider that evidence adduced on behalf of landlord, which if unshaken and consistent with averments made by him in ejectment application, then the burden would shift to tenant to establish that claim of landlord is not bona fide
Real test whether premises is required for personal use is whether need is based on good faith
Such being question of fact and finding on the subject cannot be taken exception to unless it is shown that it suffers from violations of some fundamental legal principle in the matter of appreciation of evidence or 'omission of evidence or misreading of evidence.
"Property rights", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939199
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Property rights"
2024 C L D 1277
MUHAMMAD AKRAM RAHI — Appellant Versus The COPYRIGHT BOARD and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2022 C L C 1955
MOHSIN ALI KHAN — Petitioner Versus FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN SECRETARIAT FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT OF WOMEN AT THE WORKPLACE, ISLAMABAD and another — Respondents
Court: Islamabad2020 P T D 281
FAZAL E RABBI through Authorised Attorney Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division/Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Revenue and Economic Affairs, Islamabad and 3 others
Court: Sindh High CourtP L D 2025 Federal Shariat Court 1
Syeda FOUZIA JALAAL SHAH — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law and Justice, Islamabad
Court: High Court2024 Y L R 716
Mst. SHAHNAZ BIBI and others — Appellants Versus OMBUDSPERSON (MOHTASIB) PUNJAB and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2024 C L C 1108
YASIR YAQOOB and another — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Secretary Provincial Assembly of the Punjab and 4 others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1994 Supreme Court 848
MUHAMMAD AKRAM and 3 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD RASHID and 2 others=‑‑Respondents
Court:2026 C L C 552
Malik MUHAMMAD AHSAN — Petitioner Versus FEDERAL OMBUDSMAN FOR PROTECTION AGAINST HARASSMENT through Federal Ombudsman and 7 others — Respondents
Court: Islamabad2019 C L D 881
Dr. Syed IQBAL RAZA — Appellant Versus JUSTICE OF PEACE and others — Respondents
Court: Islamabad2016 C L D 2229
GETZ PHARMA (PVT.) LIMITED through Authorized Signatory — Plaintiff Versus SERVIER LABORATORIES (FRANCE) and another — Defendants
Court: Sindh