Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 206 of 1983, decided on 20th February, 1983.

-- Art. 15-Removal of Encroachment of the Public Property Order (MLA Zone 'A') No. 821, para. 9-Proceedings; taken under M.L.O. 821. and appeal rejected by Martial Law Authority-Held, High Court lacks jurisdiction to declare proceedings to be without lawful authority.

Islam Ali Qureshi for Petitioner.

The facts giving rise to this writ petition and that Mahboob Ali petitioner occupies Thallas adjoining Shop No. 63 situated in Block No. 7, Dera Ghazi Khan. On 13th September, 1982, Deputy Commissioner. Dera Ghazi Khan, respondent No. 2 issued a notice under paragraph No. 6 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 821 asking the petitioner to remove the encroachment. The petitioner contested the application. Respondent No. 2, however, vide order dated 25th October, 1982, ordered the ejectment of the petitioner from the disputed Thallas. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner moved a Writ Petition No. 1275 of 1982 which was disposed of on 3rd November, 1982 with the direction to the concerned authorities to supply copies of the orders to the petitioner. After having obtained the copies of the orders, the petitioner moved appeal under paragraph No. 8 of Martial Law Order No. 8;1 before the Martial Law Administrator respondent No. 1 which has also been dismissed. The Deputy Commissioner, respondent No. 2 has issued a notice under para graph No. 9 of the M.L.O. 821 asking the petitioner to remove the structure of the construction from the Thallas in dispute within 24 hours. Hence this Constitutional petition, whereby the petitioner asked this Court to declare the proceedings taken under M.L.O. 821 and the order of the rejection of appeal by Deputy Martial Law Administrator, respon dent No. 1, to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since the petitioner is a lawful occupant of the Thallas which was leased out to him by the Municipal Committee under Teh-Bazari Scheme, therefore, the entire proceedings taken under M.L.O. 821 including the order of Deputy Martial Law Administrator, respondent No. 1 rejecting appeal, are without lawful authority.

3. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner and have considered the same with care. The relevant provisions of Article 15 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 may be reproduced with some advantage.

15. Validation of laws Acts, etc.

(i) ..........................................

(2) All orders made, proceedings taken and acts done by any authority, or by any person, which were made, taken or done, or purported to have been made, taken or done, on or after the fifth day of July, 1977, in exercise of the powers derived from any President's Orders; Orders of the Chief Martial Law Administrator, Martial Law Regulations, Martial Law Orders, enactments, notifications, rules, orders or byelaws, or in execution of any orders made or sentences passed by any authority in the exercise or purported exercise of, powers as aforesaid shall, notwith standing any judgment of any Court, be deemed to be and always to have been validly made, taken or done and shall not be called in ques tion in any Court on any ground, whatsoever, that provided nothing in this clause shall apply to transaction past and closed.

(3) --------------------------------------------------------------

(4) No suit or other legal proceedings shall lie in any court against any authority or any person for or on account of or in respect of any order made, proceedings taken or act done whether, in the exercise or purported exercise of the powers referred to in clause (2) or in execution of or in compliance with orders made or sentences passed in exercise or purported exercise of such powers.

(5) ......................

(a) .....................

(b) ......................................

(c) ...................

(d) ---------

(e) .............. ............

The plain reading of this Article makes crystal clear that since proceedings have beets taken under M, L.O. 821 and respondent No. I have rejected the appeal as a Martial Law Authority, this Court lacks jurisdiction to declare the impugned proceedings and order, to be without lawful authority.

M. A. K. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.