Find a Lawyer

MAZHAR ALI MAGSI versus PROVINCE OF SINDH

r Article 199 - Constitution property public property public billboards / billings on public property - The petitioner seeks to prevent the municipal corporation from indicating / erecting green belts, which according to the applicant each The argument was illegally allotted to the defendants. Accuracy - Subject Green Belts were publicly owned and in respect of Supreme Court orders, no signboards, billboards or advertisements could be allowed on the Green Belts - Respondents were advertising and in view of the orders The required allotment was illegal Supreme Court - Public property cannot be leased to any private or third party for the use and enjoyment of the general public and no third party interest can be created. Is. It was the responsibility of the government, the relevant municipal authority and all such responsibilities. In order to keep public property free from all sorts of claims and claims - the High Court declared unknowns the Green Belts illegal and directed them to resume their possession by the respondents and, moreover, the answer. Voters and officials were jointly and severally instructed to immediately remove all signboards, billboards and advertising from the Green Belts. And such indications should be allowed in future mo - constitutional petition allowed accordingly [p 485] A

P L D 2017 Sindh 483 

Before Nadeem Akhtar and Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui, JJ

MAZHAR ALI MAGSI—Petitioner

versus

PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and 6 others—Respondents

Constitutional Petition No.D-6183 of 2015, decided on 16th February,

2017.

Constitution of Pakistan—

—Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Public property—Illegal billboards/hoardings on public property—Petitioner, sought to restrain Municipal Corporation from allowing respondents from placing/erecting signage on green-belts, which per contention of petitioner, were illegally allotted to the respondents—Validity—Subject green belts were public property and in view of orders of the Supreme Court in such regard, no signboard, billboard or advertisements could be allowed on said green belts—Respondents were advertising and purported allotments to them were illegal in view of the orders of the Supreme Court—Public property meant for use and enjoyment of general public could not be leased to any private or third party nor could any type of third party interest could be created therein— Government, relevant municipal authority and all such functionaries were duty bound to keep public property free from all types of encroachments and claims—High Court declared impugned allotments of the green belts as illegal and directed that the possession of the same shall be resumed forthwith by the respondents and furthermore, the respondents and authorities were jointly and severally directed to ensure that all signboards, billboards and advertisements were removed forthwith from the green belts and in future mo such signage should be allowed thereon—Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly. [p. 485] A

C.M.A. No.209-K of 2014 in C.P. No.l52-K of 2014 and C.M.As. Nos. 657 to 660-K of 2015 and C.M.A. No.869-K of 2016 in C.M.A. No.209 of 2014 rel.

Ayaz Hussain holding brief for Raja Mir Muhammad for the Petitioner.

Chaudhry Arif for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.

Mirza Saleem Akhtar for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

Asadullah Lashari, State Counsel.

Respondents Nos. 6 and 7 called absent.

property advocates from Kotla lawyer