Defacement of properties
Defacement of properties legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Contention of petitioner was that buildings and walls had been painted with slogans of political parties and religious organizations which was deprecated by the Constitution
Validity
Islam, Constitution and Balochistan Prohibition of Expressing Matters on Walls Ordinance, 2001 had prohibited defacement of property
Law should be applied equally and without fear or favour
Sloganeering and wall chalking on another's property was an abomination
Believers would offend when the name of the Creator, His Messenger and Verses of Holy Quran would be inscribed or stenciled on walls or other such places
Constitutional petition was disposed of after passing necessary directions.
"Defacement of properties", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124952846
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Defacement of properties"
2015 Y L R 318
Syed IMDAD SHAH — Petitioner Versus SECRETARY, FOREST AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT
Court: BalochistanC L D 2002 472
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
2003 C L C 361
Mrs. PARVEEN QAMAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, ISLAMABAD and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1998 C L C 1169
JAVED AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1980 P Cr
Sh. MUBARIK ALI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (L), SHEIKHUPURA AND 5 OTHERS‑.‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2019 Y L R 2540
VIJAY PERVAIZ — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent
Court: BalochistanP L D 2022 Sindh 532
Syed MUHAMMAD ASIF SULTAN and 4 others — Plaintiffs Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary, Ministry of Culture, Tourism and Antiquities and 2 others — Defendants
Court: High Court1995K86
Prof. MUHAMMAD SHARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Court: ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(2) & 11(1)‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Act 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Government security in the shape of bearer bonds were stolen‑‑ Some of such bonds were, however, recovered from accused person‑‑ Petitioner claimed entitlement to issuance of duplicate security in respect of stolen bonds not so recovered‑‑‑Person entitled to Government Security would be entitled to issuance of duplicate security in case such security was stolen, lost or destroyed‑‑‑Bonds in question having admittedly been stolen, petitioner would be entitled to issuance of duplicate security in terms of S.11(1), Public Debt Act, 1944, subject to enquiry to be conducted by Authority under Ss.12, 13 & 14 of the Act. pp. 547, 548 A & CP L D 2017 Sindh 448
NADIR ALI — Petitioner Versus MEDICAL SUPERINTENDNET, CIVIL HOSPITAL, LARKANA and 9 others — Respondents
Court: High Court