Provision as to property

2023 PLD 245 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts. 23 & 24Provision as to propertyProtection of property rightsScopeRight to property is one of the fundamental rights recognized and guaranteed by the ConstitutionSuch right is, however, neither unfettered nor unbridled

Article 23 of the Constitution ordains that every citizen shall have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest.

2022 PTD 1441 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts.4, 23 & 24Right of individuals to be dealt in accordance with lawProvision as to propertyProtection of property rightsScope

It is an inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and no action detrimental to his life, liberty, reputation or property shall be taken except as per law.

2022 MLD 1081 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Arts.199, 10-A, 23 & 24Co-operative Societies Act (VII of 1925), S.17-BConstitutional petitionRight to fair trialProvision as to propertyProtection of property rightsExpulsion of a member of societyOpportunity of hearingScope

Petitioner defaulted in payment of outstanding dues regarding cost of land and development charges as such, respondents cancelled the plots by refunding the deposited amounts, which order was assailed through present constitutional petition

Validity

Minute reading of S. 17-B of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, revealed that an opportunity of hearing was a must rather one was a deadly committer of default

In petitioner's case said proviso was missing, as admittedly the respondent had been issuing notices to the petitioner but he had not been afforded an opportunity of hearing, prior to cancellation of even provisional allotment of plots

Action of respondents had infringed petitioner's fundamental right of holding property as provided under Art.23 of the Constitution as well as undermined protection of his property rights as guaranteed by Art.24 of the Constitution

More so, the actions of respondents had seriously jeopardized the constitutional protection of due process of law provided under Art.10-A of the Constitution

Respondents had clearly breached the Fundamental Rights of the petitioner provided and protected under the Constitution

Case was sent back to the Secretary Co-operative for decision afresh after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

2016 CLC 367 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 25, 23 & 199Constitutional petitionProvision as to propertyProtection of property rightsRight to approval of completion plan and issuance of "completion certificate"

Respondent-Defence Housing Authority refused to process application for approval of completion plan and issuance of completion certificate regarding subject property on the ground that it had put a caution in respect of subject property on account of pending litigation

Respondent took plea that the application of petitioner could not be entertained as suits regarding title of subject property were pending before courts and that the relief sought through present petition could also be sought in the pending suit of petitioner

Validity

Petitioner, as per official record and undisputed facts, was owner-in-possession of subject property

Present grievance of petitioner was subsequent event, for which his pending suit was not efficacious remedy as amending the plaint was laborious exercise

High Court observed that where remedy, including civil suit, was neither adequate nor efficacious and the same would not give requisite relief, then in such peculiar circumstances invoking constitutional jurisdiction, even during pendency of suit, was not prohibited

Present constitutional petition, in view of its peculiar facts and exceptional circumstances, was maintainable

Measures taken by respondent, in the present set of facts, had over stretched its authority to the extent of unreasonableness

Respondent, while maintaining caution note in its record and computer system for protection of future transferees and purchasers of subject property, could still address present grievance of petitioner by entertaining his application for processing completion of plan and issuance of completion certificate in accordance with relevant rules and bylaws

Present action of respondent in refusing to do was thus tantamount to putting clog on ownership right of petitioner in respect of subject property, which was not only unreasonable act but excessive use of authority vested in respondent

Petitioner, on basis of assumptions, could not be deprived of his entitlement to use and enjoy subject property, which, otherwise, would be violative of Arts.23 & 24 of the Constitution, relating to proprietary rights of citizens

High Court directed respondent-Authority to process the application for approval of completion plan and issue completion certificate

Constitutional petition was allowed in circumstances.