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 Miscellaneous Petition No. 77 of 1980 in Civil Appeal No..45 of 1978, decided on 3rd February, 1982.
(Application under Order XXXIII, rule 6 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980 for direction to the appellant and to change the nature of suit land by way of construction, etc.).
--------O. XLI, r. 5‑Stay of proceeding‑Suit for recovery of possession of land decreed against Government in favour of petitioner‑Govern ment filing appeal in Supreme Court and obtaining stay order‑ Petitioner approaching Supreme Court with grievance of Government having handed over possession of land to WAPDA for construction of a colony.‑Representatives of WAPDA on being called by Supreme Court stating to be mere contractors for Irrigation Department and expressing lack of knowledge whether land acquired in legal manner Appellant Government's counsel although earlier directed by Court to get proper instructions unable to assist Court properly and putting forward excuse of being unable to get all necessary instructions from responsible officer of relevant authority‑Court, in circumstances, held had no option but to vacate stay order.
Ch. Asghar Ali Bhatti, Advocate Supreme Court and Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Applicant (Respondent).
M. A. Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and Ijaz Ahmad, Advocate‑on Record for Respondent (Appellant).
Col. Roniq Ali for WAPDA.
Date of hearing : 3rd February, 1982.
‑This is an application by the respondent in the main appeal for the issuance of a direction to the appellant Government to stop raising construction on the suit land. The learned counsel submitted that the Irrigation Department took illegal possession of her land measuring 42 kanals and 3 marlas in Mauzia, Ahmadpur Mohna, Bahawalpur, belonging to her predecessor‑in‑interest, without taking recourse to the acquisition pro ceedings. Their predecessor‑in‑interest, Mst. Bakht Bibi filed a suit for the recovery of the possession of the suit‑land but the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 29‑6‑1966. She then filed a regular first appeal before the High Court, which by its judgment dated 15‑4‑1978, reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff‑respondent (applicant). The Provincial Government then filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 45/78) in this Court. The execution of the decree was stayed by this Court by an order dated 30‑7‑108 which was confirmed on 3‑10‑1978. Consequently, the land in question remained in possession of the appellant Government. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the appellant‑Government has now handed over the land in question to WAPDA for construction of a colony. We called the representative of the WAPDA who submitted that they were merely contractors for the Irrigation Depart ment and did not know whether the land in question had been legally acquired.
Mr. Bajwa, appearing for the appellate Government could not assist us properly and put forward the excuse that he was unable to get all necessary instructions from a responsible officer of the relevant authority, though he was earlier directed to get proper instructions.
2. In the circumstances, we are left with no option but to vacate the stay order granted in appellant's favour and confirmed on 3‑10‑1978. The stay order is consequently vacated.
This disposes of the application.
Stay vacated.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer