Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 284 of 1975, decided on 11th November, 1980.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 11‑6‑1974, in R.S.A. 'No. 280 of 1960)
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑West Pakistan Waqf Property Ordinance (XXVIII of 1961), Ss.13 & 14‑‑Waqf property‑‑Claim to‑‑Income from shrines deposited by Receiver during pendency of litigation taken over by Auqaf Department‑‑High Court being of the view that petitioners were to pursue their remedy to claim said amount before District Judge‑‑View being unexceptionable, upheld by Supreme Court and leave to appeal refused.
Ch. Ghulam Mujtaba, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Riaz Kiyani, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 11th November, 1980.
‑‑Three regular second appeals being Regular Second Appeal No. 280/60, Regular Second Appeals Nos. 281/60 and 247/60, have been disposed of by the High Court, vide its order, dated 11‑6‑1974 on the ground that as the property in dispute viz. income from boxes of the shrine concerned which had been deposited by its Receiver during the pendency of the litigation had been taken over by the Auqaf Department under Notifications, dated 19‑10‑1960 and 11‑7‑1964 published in the Gazette of the West Pakistan, Extraordinary, dated 19‑10‑1960 and 15‑7‑1964, respectively, therefore, the petitioners can pursue their remedy to claim the aforesaid amount under the (relevant) West Pakistan Waqf Properties Ordinance, etc. before the District Judge concerned.
2. The petitioners have come up in a petition for special leave to appeal against the same to this Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant notifications. It is clear that the property in dispute has been taken over by the Auqaf Department as aforesaid. In the circumstances the view that to claim these properties in any manner the petitioners can pursue their remedies under the aforesaid law in unexceptionable.
4. The result is that this petition has no merit and is dismissed hereby.
M , I. Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer