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.
Writ Petition No. 1041 of 1982, decided on 3rd November, 1982.
West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act (VII of 1956)‑
‑‑ S. 3‑Requisitioning of property‑Property already in possession of Government‑Order of its requisition, held, without jurisdiction.
Muhammad Tufail v. Province of Punjab and 5 others P L D 1978 Lah. 87 rel.
Ch. Zaheer‑ud‑Din for Petitioner.
Iftikhar Hussain Shah for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 3rd November, 1982.
The property involved in this writ petition is owned by the petitioner, Sakhawat Ali Siddiqui and was being used as a school when it was requi sitioned by the Provincial Government under subsection (1) of section 3 of the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956, hereinafter referred to as the said Act. The order of its requisition has been challenged by the petitioner by invoking the constitutional jurisdiction‑of this Court.
2. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the disputed property was already in possession of the Provincial Govern ment and was being used as a school when it was requisitioned and, there fore, the order of requisition was of no legal effect. He placed reliance on Muhammad Tufail v. Province of Punjab and others P L D 1978 Lah. 87.
3. Learned counsel for the respondents namely, Province of Punjab and others, did not dispute the fact that the property in question was in possession of the Provincial Government at the time of its requisition. He was, however, not satisfied with the interpretation of the provisions of the said Act as given in the case of Muhammad Tufail. In that case it was held that the said provisions can be pressed into service only when a person other than Government or its employees or offices or educational institutions occupy the property sought to be requisitioned but the property already in possession of the Government for use of educational institutions cannot be requisitioned. This view, according to the learned counsel, is not correct.
4. While deciding the case of Muhammad Tufail, Aftab Hussain, J., as he then was, gave elaborate reasons for holding that the property possessed by the Government cannot be requisitioned by it. I, with respect, endorse his reasoning and follow the view expressed by him. The result, therefore, is that since, in the present case, the Government admittedly, in possession of the disputed property at the time of its a requisition, the order of its requisition is without jurisdiction.
5. This constitutional petition is, accordingly, accepted, with costs, and the order relating to the requisition of the disputed property is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
M. Y. H. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer