Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑109 of 1969, decided on 27th January 1970.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 9th September 1969, in Writ Petition No. 499 of 1969).
Art. 98‑Person evicted from property in pursuance of unlawful order passed by District Magistrate‑High Court restoring possession in writ jurisdiction Order, held, proper‑ Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Ashfaq Hussain, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Vakil Ahmad Kidwai, Attorney for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 27th January 1970.
‑The petitioner claims to be the owner of the disputed property (Plot No. 6/4 and 6/5‑S. R. 5, with an incomplete building thereon, situated in Serai Quarter, Grant Road, Karachi) along with his two brothers and a sister by purchase from one., Nawabzada Ali Zaheer Khan to whom it was transferred permanently by the Rehabilitation and Settlement Department. The respondent No. 1 who was in its possession allegedly as a squatter, was evicted there from by the police under the orders of the District Magistrate, Karachi, on the 1st of September 1969. The respondent challenged this order by a writ petition in the High Court which was accepted as neither the respondent's counsel nor the Additional Advocate‑General who appeared for the District Magistrate found it possible to defend the executive order of the District Magistrate which plainly lacked legal sanction and validity. The learned Judges of the Division Bench while setting aside the impugned order of the District Magistrate also directed that the respondent be restored to possession of the premises in order to rectify the wrong that had been done to him.
In this petition for special leave, the legality of the High Court's order has been challenged in so far as it relates to the restitution of the property to the respondent.
It is stated at the Bar that the respondent has already been put into possession of the disputed property in terms of the High Court's order. This petition is, consequently, rendered in fructuous and is dismissed as such. However, we would likely to observe that the High Court's order under challenge does not take away and will not prejudice, in any manner, any right that the petitioner may possess in the disputed property and which he may be able to establish in the civil Courts.
Order accordingly.
Order accordingly,
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer