Thursday, November 19, 2009

Dispossession case laws

Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Cr.C 1017
Appelant Side: MIR DARAZ KHAN & others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: DARYA KHAN
Judge Name: Syed Yahya Zahid Gilani
Judgment Result:Revision accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3(1)--scope and applicability of--section 3(1) of the illegal dispossession act discerns that it applies to cases wherein somebody enters into or upon any property with intention to dispossess the lawful owner or occupier of that property and thereby wants to grab, control or occupy that property--such phenomena was not at all existing in the case.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Cr.C 1017
Appelant Side: MIR DARAZ KHAN & others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: DARYA KHAN
Judge Name: Syed Yahya Zahid Gilani
Judgment Result:Revision accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 2(c), 3, 4 & 7--criminal procedure code (v of 1898), ss. 439, 265-k, 561-a--complaint against illegal dispossession--plea of--oral agreement to render domestic services--refused to render the same--question of lawful entry as tenants--application for acquittal was rejected--challenge to--petitioners were admittedly inducted in the house in question by the owner under an oral agreement that in return the petitioners should render domestic services--entry of petitioners in the house in question was a lawful entry as tenants, if at all there was any grievance of complainant that the petitioners had refused to render him the promised domestic services in lieu of their occupation of the house, according to the oral agreement existing in between them, respondent might initiate ejectment proceedings against them at a proper form--since the petitioners were lawful occupiers of a house in question in terms of s. 2(c) of illegal dispossession act--revision petition accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Supreme Court 356
Appelant Side: WAZIR KHAN and others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: QUTAB DIN and others
Judge Name: M. Javed Buttar & Nasir-Ul-Mulk
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 42--dispossessed within twelve years of the filing of suit--onus to prove--inconsistency regarding dispossession and documentary evidence--appellant had failed to discharge the burden that he had been dispossessed within the period of 12 years from date of filing the suit is liable to be dismissed on such score alone.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Supreme Court 356
Appelant Side: WAZIR KHAN and others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: QUTAB DIN and others
Judge Name: M. Javed Buttar & Nasir-Ul-Mulk
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----arts. 142 & 144--suit for declaration and possession--applicability and distinction--burden of proof--forcibly dispossession by defendant after restoration of mutations by commissioner--mutations were fraudulently entered and attested--validity of mutations--suit for barred by time--suit for possession could have been competently brought within twelve years from the date on which order of restoration was passed--first appeal was dismissed while second appeal was allowed--questions for determining before the courts that of limitation and genuiness of the sale of land through mutations--a suit for possession of immovable property when the plaintiff has been dispossessed is covered by art. 142 and the time is to be reckoned from the date of the plaintiffs dispossession--art. 144 of limitation act, is a residuary article for the class of suits or possession, as it is applicable when special provisions for such a suit is otherwise not provided--period of twelve years for a suit under art. 144 of limitation act, is reckoned from the date when the defendant's possession becomes adverse to the plaintiff--burden of proving dispossession within twelve years of filing of the suit under art. 142 of limitation act, lies on the plaintiff whereas the onus under art 144 lies on the defendant to establish that he remained in adverse possession for more than twelve years--appeal was dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Supreme Court 509
Appelant Side: CONTRACTOR HAJI MUHAMMAD ALAM (deceased)
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SHAUKAT SULTAN and others
Judge Name: Ijaz-ul-Hassan, Muhammad Qaim Jan Khan
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 9--constitution of pakistan 1973 art. 185(3)--leave to appeal--limitation--dispossession by co-owner--suit for recovery of possession--appreciation of evidence--petitioners were in possession and then dispossessed--possession was not taken with consent--suit was filed only after 10 days--all the ingredients of s. 9 were established--j & d of h.c. was not open to legitimate exception--moreover, a owner in exclusive possession, if dispossessed by other co-owner, within 6 months can sue under s. 9 of specific relief act--petition dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Cr.C 226
Appelant Side: SAMANDAR KHAN & another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Haji ABDUL REHMAN and others
Judge Name: Mehta Kailash Nath Kohli
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 417(2)--illegal dispossession act, 2005, s. 3--respondents/accused acquitted by dismissing complaint u/s. 3 of the illegal dispossession act, 2005--appeal against acquittal--held: at the time of filing of the complaint, the appellants were not owners of the property and could not had invoked the provisions of illegal dispossession act, 2005--illegal dispossession act, was legislated on 6th of july 2005, wherein by virtue of section 3 of the illegal dispossession act the offence has been made punishable--dispute between legal heirs themselves and in order to settle their civil rights, the present proceedings were initiated, which fact is apparent from the perusal of evidence, as held by the trial court--appellants has not been able to point out any specific material omission or misreading or perversity of the judgment, where the jurisdiction to intervene the same to be exercised--accused had earned double innocence and the findings of the trial court were based upon proper appraisal of evidence--appeal dismissed in limine.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Cr.C 365
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD SOHAIL KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: FAZAL MUHAMMAD and 2 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Alam Khan
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 4(i)--pakistan penal code, (xlv of 1860), s. 448--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), s. 439--applicability to ordinary disputes--dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and much prior to the filing of the petition--fir was lodged by the petitioner against the respondents which was still pending and will be decided on its own merits--presence of civil liability recoverable under the ordinary law of the land--provisions of illegal dispossession act, are not applicable in the circumstance--revision dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Cr.C 365
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD SOHAIL KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: FAZAL MUHAMMAD and 2 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Alam Khan
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 4(i)--pakistan penal code, (xlv of 1860), s. 448--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), s. 439--applicability to ordinary disputes--dispute between the parties is purely of a civil nature and much prior to the filing of the petition--fir was lodged by the petitioner against the respondents which was still pending and will be decided on its own merits--presence of civil liability recoverable under the ordinary law of the land--provisions of illegal dispossession act, are not applicable in the circumstance--revision dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 154
Appelant Side: Mst. NOOR JEHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: AMNA BEGUM and 5 others
Judge Name: Zubda-tul-Hussain
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 12 & 144 & o. xxi, rr. 100 & 101--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--execution proceedings--forcibily dispossession--restoration of possession--powers of executing controller--scope of--consequent upon the ejectment order, the petitioner succeeded to get the possession of the property in-question--since in view of the acquisition of proprietary rights by the judgment debtor--petitioner was not entitled to get the possession from them, the same could be lawfully restored to the judgment debtor by rent controller--rent controller in exercise of powers in such behalf and especially with the aid of section 144 of cpc could evolve the procedure and could make use of the relevant provisions of order xxi rules 100 and 101 of cpc--procedural provisions contained in rules 100 and 101 of order xxi cpc were part of procedural law relating to execution of a decree and could be invoked in exercise of order passed by rent controller--petition dismissed

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 563
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD HABIB
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/JUSTICE OF PEACE JAMPUR DISTRICT RAJANPUR and 2 others
Judge Name: Kazim Ali Malik
Judgment Result:Petition accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 22-a & 22-b--illegal dispossession act, 2005, s. 3--civil procedure code, (v of 1908), scope--specific relief act, 1877, ss. 8 & 9--illegal dispossession from the plot--restoration of possession by adj under power ex-officio justice of peace--jurisdiction of--validity of--there was not any provision of law, which may empower or authorize an ex-officio justice of the peace or asj or adj to pass a decree of possession of immovable property summarily on an application--in fact the adj adopted a self styled procedure unwarranted in law--adj passed the impugned order provided a basis to say that he did not have adequate knowledge of criminal and civil law governing the subject--impugned order being illegal and without jurisdiction could not be allowed to remain in field--petition was accepted.
Citation Name: PLJ 2009 Lahore High Court 563
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD HABIB
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE/JUSTICE OF PEACE JAMPUR DISTRICT RAJANPUR and 2 others
Judge Name: Kazim Ali Malik
Judgment Result:Petition accepted
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 22-a, 22-b--illegal dispossession act, 2005, s. 3--civil procedure code, (v of 1908), scope--specific relief act, 1877, ss. 8 & 9--illegal dispossession--remedies--respondent was dispossessed from her owned plot by petitioner, she should have filed a suit on the basis of her entitlement--in case she was not possessed with title or interest in the plot then speedy remedy for restoration of possession u/ss. 8 or 9 of specific relief act--respondent chose to invoke the jurisdiction of the ex-officio justice of the peace--petition should have been dismissed at limine stage asking her to avail remedies permissible under the law--adj in fact passed a decree for recovery of possession of immovable property in an application without trial of the dispute in terms of s. 9 of the act and thus encroached upon the function of civil court--another remedy available to respondent was to file a private complaint u/s. 3 of the illegal dispossession act, 2005--record did not tell as to what were the circumstances which persuaded the adj to allow respondent to prosecute her case and cause touching immovable property before wrong forum over and the law governing the subject--respondent's application dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Supreme Court 38
Appelant Side: RAHIM TAHIR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: AHMAD JAN and two others
Judge Name: Rana Bhagwandas & Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi
Judgment Result:Case remanded.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3(2)--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 185(3)--complaint for appropriate action--illegal and unauthorized occupant--complaint was dismissed--assailed--validity--illegal dispossession act, 2005 having no retrospective effect may not be applicable to cases of unauthorized occupants pending before any other forum on the date of promulgation of act but if the case not already pending before any other forum on date of enforcement of illegal act, same would fall within the ambit of illegal dispossession act 2005--special enactment which has been promulgated to discourage the land grabbers and to protect the rights of owner and lawful occupant of the property--all cases of illegal occupants would be covered by the act except the cases already pending before any other forum--illegal dispossession act, is not applicable to an illegal occupant, who was in occupation of premises prior to date of promulgate of the act has no substance purposes was to protect the right of possession of lawful owner or occupier and not to perpetuate the possession of illegal occupants--petition was converted into appeal and case remanded to sessions judge.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Cr.C 820
Appelant Side: ALIA HUSSAIN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Syed ZIAUDDIN
Judge Name: Mehta Kailash Nath Kohli
Judgment Result:Petition disposed of.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 2(d)--"words and phrases"--definition of--ownerowner recorded in the revenue record shall be deemed to be the owner for the purpose of illegal dispossession.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Cr.C 820
Appelant Side: ALIA HUSSAIN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Syed ZIAUDDIN
Judge Name: Mehta Kailash Nath Kohli
Judgment Result:Petition disposed of.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 7--application for recovery of possession as interim relief--contention--petitioner was a widowed lady and house-wife; after the death of her husband, she had gone to karachi alongwith her children and closed the house--respondent had forcibly opened the door and house was occupied forcibly--respondent relied on an agreement to sell allegedly executed on 12th august, 2006 and stated that a sum of rs. 10,00,000/- was paid and that the civil suits have been filed both the parties--held: the (document) sale agreement was coined at a later stage & it was never put into investigation nor produced before the investigating police, as such, it appear that the plea was afterthought--though document was allegedly executed on 12th august, 2006 but from perusal and examination of the document, it appeared to be brand new document and prima facie signatures were not tallying with the original signatures of the petitioner on record--it was also not acceptable that such a huge amount of rupees ten lacs could had been transacted in cash--it has been found that fraud has been played--further held: petitioner has made out a prima facie case entitling to the interim possession u/s. 7 of the illegal dispossession act, 2005--sho police station directed to put the petitioner into premises to day positively, however, the parties were at litigation, which may continue and decision would be subject to final decision in the civil suits pending between the parties--petition disposed of.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Cr.C 883
Appelant Side: AZIZ AHMAD
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUMREZ & others
Judge Name: Ghulam Mohyud Din Malik
Judgment Result:0
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 561-a--illegal dispossession act, (ix of 2005) s. 9--provisions of--applicability--section 9 of the illegal dispossession act, 2005 provides that code of criminal procedure shall apply to the proceedings under the said act unless provided otherwise.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Cr.C 883
Appelant Side: AZIZ AHMAD
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUMREZ & others
Judge Name: Ghulam Mohyud Din Malik
Judgment Result:0
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 9--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), s. 417(2)--dismissal of complaint--remedy against--provisions of section 9 of illegal dispossession act, against the order of acquittal and dismissal of private complaint only remedy is by way of appeal under section 417(2) of criminal procedure code, 1898.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Cr.C 196
Appelant Side: ASHIQ HUSSAIN & another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ATHAR SHER & 2 others
Judge Name: Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
Judgment Result:Revision disposed of.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 439 & 435--illegal dispossession act, 2005, s. 7--criminal revision--commencement of trial--validity--held: criminal trial commences when the accused persons have been summoned and a charge has been framed in the case--neither the accused persons have been summoned and there was no question of framing charge and neither one had been framed--condition precedent for passing of an order u/s. 7 of the illegal dispossession act, 2005 i.e. "during the trial" did not exist--impugned order was without lawful authority and was accordingly set aside.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Cr.C 1107
Appelant Side: ANJUM JILLANI
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. FEROZA JILLANI and another
Judge Name: Muhammad Alam Khan
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3(2)--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), s. 410--conviction and sentence recorded by trial court--challenge to--dismissal of appeal--applicability of provisions of illegal dispossession act--appellant admitted in his statement before the court that the respondent was the step mother of the appellant and she was the owner of the three marlas house which was given to her by her deceased husband as dower and after his death she was dispossessed by the appellant from the said house, forcibly the contention of the appellant, that the provisions of the illegal dispossession act, 2005 were not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case, was without any substance as the provisions of the act ibid were not only applicable to the land grabbers and land maphia but were also applicable to the forcible dispossession of a person from his lawful possession--appeal dismissed as meritless.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Cr.C 589
Appelant Side: SAHIB KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SAADULLAH KHAN and others
Judge Name: Syed Yahya Zahid Gilani
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 5--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), s. 439--dismisal of complaint relating to illegal dispossession from land--legality--investigation report of police prepared with assistance of patawri would indicate that in a portion of land, trees were standing while in remaining part of land crop was standing--plea of illegal dispossession was thus, not made out through ploughing of fields--findings of trial court that no offence as per allegations in complaint would appear to have been committed to proceed further with complaint was thus, correct--no case for interference with findings of trial court was made out.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Cr.C 652
Appelant Side: KAMAL-UD-DIN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: FAKHR-UD-DIN and another
Judge Name: Muhammad Alam Khan
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 439 r.w. s. 561(a)--illegal dispossession act, 2005 ss. 3 & 7--order as to maintainability of complaint and directing accused to file bail bonds--validity--quashment of--held: in the revenue record complainant was shown as owner in possession--court had recorded only tentative finding and held that the crux of the matter would be decided after recording evidence--no final or substantial order had been passed--bail bonds were only to secure his attendance before court--petition dismissed.
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 872
Appelant Side: WALI MUHAMMAD
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, JARANWALA DISTRICT FAISALABAD and 5 others
Judge Name: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi
Judgment Result:Petition allowed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 199--illegal dispossession act, 2005--s. 3--case of partition of property and relates to jurisdiction of a civil court--pendency of dispute before the court or revenue court--bars the jurisdiction--complaint was dismissed due to pendency of civil suit--challenge to--when the application u/s. 3 of illegal dispossession act, 2005 was filed the matter of disputed property was not pending before any other forum and no distinction can be made in instant case whether the accused belongs to a group or is an individual--held: even if a relative takes possession of a property through illegal and unauthorized means from a lawful owner, the provisions of illegal dispossession act, would be attracted--petition was allowed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 256
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD alias MAHAMAND
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: RANA ABDUL QAYYUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KAMALIA, DISTT. T.T. SINGH and 2 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Muzammal Khan
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----preamble--qabza group--land mafia--where as it is expedient to protect the lawful owners and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession there from by the property grabbers".

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 256
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD alias MAHAMAND
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: RANA ABDUL QAYYUM ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KAMALIA, DISTT. T.T. SINGH and 2 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Muzammal Khan
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 3, 5 & 7--constitution of pakistan 1973, art. 199--property grabber or qabza group--armed with lethal weapons occupied the land forcibly--assailed--assailants were property grabbers--resort to law of land is not applicable--respondent had neither asserted that petitioner is a property grabber or belongs to qabza group/land mafia nor he produced any proof that petitioner was earlier involved in any such activity--owners/occupiers of immovable properties dispossessed by persons having no antecedents of their involvement in property grabbing, must have resort to ordinary law of land as illegal dispossession act, 2005 is not applicable to their complained dispossession--possession of suit land was being controlled by the civil court cognizant of petitioner's suit for possession through pre-emption by issuing a "status-quo" order and during currency of such order, the impugned order could not have been passed--held: provisions of illegal dispossession act were not attracted to such case but inspite of it, those were invoked and an unwarranted order of restoration of possession was passed--petition accordingly accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 644
Appelant Side: MALIK MUHAMMAD NAEEM AWAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MALIK ALEEM MAJEED and 5 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Akram Qureshi
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--applicability--land grabbers--qabza groups--illegal dispossession act, was not only applicable to the land grabbers, qabza groups or the persons habitually indulged in such activities but to all persons illegally occupying or possession any premises--petition accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 665
Appelant Side: SHOUKAT SULTAN & others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: CONTRACTOR HAJI MUHAMMAD ASLAM (deceased) through Legal Representation & others
Judge Name: Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 199--specific relief act, (i of 1877) s. 9--question of--dispossession by co-sharer--suit for recovery of possession was decreed--revision against and order of trial court set aside--challenge to--constitutional jurisdiction--question of--once co-sharer entered into possession then he cannot be dispossessed even if he has taken possession forcibly was not tenable--held: where co-sharer in possession is dispossessed by another co-sharer then he has two options--he can either wait and file suit for partition or he can file a suit under section 9 of the specific relief act, 1877--constitutional petition accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 369
Appelant Side: Ch. MUHAMMAD HANIF
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. ASIA
Judge Name: Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----o. xxi, rr. 97, 100 & 103 & s. 115--dispossession by decree holder or purchasher--question of title and possession--application for ejectment--dismissed by courts below--civil revision--petitioner was not in possession--held: ejectment petition itself while petitioner was present before the rent controller that he was not in possession--objection petition even otherwise would not be maintainable in view of such fact--suit in view of bar would also be not maintainable is rather misplaced--civil revision dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2008 Lahore High Court 426
Appelant Side: IFTIKHAR AHMED
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ZULFIQAR ALI and 3 others
Judge Name: M. Bilal Khan
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 199--illegal dispossession act, 2005, s. 3--constitutional petition--registered sale-deed--occupied illegally without any justification--illegally dispossessed the petitioner from shop--scope of--held: if a brother illegally dispossesses his brother, the illegal dispossession act, 2005 would not be attracted and further that such act would also not come into play if the property had been procured by any of the parties by means of registered sale-deed--high court cannot subscribe to the view express by session judge--petition was accepted.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 252
Appelant Side: GHULAM QADIR
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst. AZRA BIBI and 5 others
Judge Name: Tariq Shamim
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 7--interim order--validity--interim order passed under s. 7 of the illegal dispossession act, 2005 cannot be challenged in high court in its constitutional jurisdiction as it can be validly challenged in appeal against the final judgment.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 799
Appelant Side: NAZIR AHMAD KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: TANVEER AHMAD and 3 others
Judge Name: Tariq Shamim
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3--constitution of pakistan, 1973--art. 199--property grabber--alternative remedy--availability--demonstrates--calculated effort--illegal dispossession act, 2005 was not designed to apply to ordinary cases relating to dispossession from immovable property where the aggrieved person has remedy available to him before civil or revenue court--petition was dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 799
Appelant Side: NAZIR AHMAD KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: TANVEER AHMAD and 3 others
Judge Name: Tariq Shamim
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 22-a & 22-b--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--illegal dispossession act, 2005, ss. 3 & 4--constitutional petition--dispossessed from land--illegality--direction to register case as per law--sho declined to register a case against accused--complaint u/ss. 3 & 4 of illegal dispossession act, 2005 was also dimissed--assailed--civil litigation was pending between parties--complaint does not absolve the petitioner of such duty to mention in private complaint--petition was dismissed.
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Sh.C-AJ&K 49
Appelant Side: WAZIR MUHAMMAD and others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: STATE and others
Judge Name: Syed Hussain Mazhar Kaleem
Judgment Result:Order accordingly.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 307/341, 147, 148 & 149--islamic penal laws act, s. 5/15--double murder--conviction & sentence--appreciation of evidence--complainant party got an order for dispossession, from the court of tehsildar--order was appealable but complainant party did not wait for the expiry of appeal time and adopted an improper procedure to dispossess them--presence of the victims and other members of the complainant party at the place of occurrence was not justified--a right of self defence and defence of property was available to the convict--sentence of qisas was altered to life imprisonment.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 1173
Appelant Side: SULEMAN and 4 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE NANKANA SAHIB
Judge Name: Tariq Shamim
Judgment Result:Petition allowed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 3, 4, 5(1) & 7(1)--during pendency of complaint--ordered to hand over the possession of the disputed property--assailed--held: ahata in-question is a part of abadi deh which was neither sold through a registered sale-deed nor the possession thereof was delivered through any legal document--where the claim of a party is not supported by any documentary evidence--trial court stead of conducting a further probe into the matter by framing the charge and directing the parties to produce evidence in support of thier respective claims--petitioner was directed to hand over possession of the property to respondent--an order under section 7(1) of the act is discretionary with the court, if it had not been so, there was no reason for the legislature to have incorporated a provision for putting the petitioners in possession u/s. 8 of illegal dispossession act--on receipt of a complaint the court may direct the officer-in-charge of a police station to investigate and forward the result of investigation to the court within fifteen days and cognizance is to be taken by the court on receipt thereof--although the opinion of police is not binding on the court--however, it is the function of the police to collect evidence and to place it before the court.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Cr.C 651
Appelant Side: JEHANGIR KHALIL etc.
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: GHULAM FAROOQ etc.
Judge Name: Talaat Qayyum Qureshi
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 5--criminal procedure code, 1898 (v of 1898), s. 439--illegally dispossessed--application for restoration of possession--dismissed--question of--jurisdiction of--applicants were owner of the disputed land--suit land was previously being cultivated through respondents as tenant for the last 20 years--petitioners were receiving the produce of the suit land--respondents nos. 1 & 3 illegally dispossessed respondent no. 5, the tenant of the complainant and they also cut and removed the crop of the petitioners--enquiry was marked to the s.h.o., who recorded statements of the tenants of the complainant--dispossession as per the statement of respondent no. 5 (tenant) took place 1 years back--if the statements of the tenants were taken into consideration, then dispossession took place 1 years before filing of the complaint--illegal dispossession act, 2005 was promulgated from 7th july 2005, the alleged dispossession took place much before the promulgation of the act--since the provisions of the act could not applied retrospectively, therefore, the act of respondents no. 1 to 3 did not fall within the ambit of the act--petitioners was asked to explain the said delay, to obtain the copy of khasra girdawari but due to absence of the patwari halqa, they could not get the copy of khasara girdawari--khasra girdawari had not been attached with this revision petition too, therefore, the explanation given by the learned counsel for the explanation given by the counsel for the petitioners was not proper and convincing--petitioners did not even bother to lodge report in the police station with regard to the occurrence--complaint was filed as after thought, with abnormal delay and with due deliberations and consultations--petitioners had been aggrieved by any act of respondents nos. 1 to 3, they can safely approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for redressal of their grievance--resultantly revision petition rightly dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Cr.C 1
Appelant Side: SARDAR SAJJAD HAIDER KHAN and 2 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: HABIBULLAH AAMIR, ADDL. SESSIONS JUDGE ATTOCK and another
Judge Name: Syed Shabbar Raza Rizvi
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 3 & 4--criminal procedure code (v of 1898), ss. 265-k, 439 & 561--application u/s. 265-k dissmissed by trial court--assailed--question whether complaint u/s. 3 of illegal dispossession act could be filed directly before the session judge or should be routed through magistrate u/ss. 190(2) & 193 cr.p.c.--held: session's court is competent to entertain and try the complaint, the court may take cognizance himself as mentioned in s. 4 of the illegal dispossession act--complaint filed under the act does not require to be routed through a magistrate u/ss. 190(2) & 193 cr.p.c.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 217
Appelant Side: ABDUL MAJEED
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others
Judge Name: M. Bilal Khan
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 5 & 7(1)--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--interim order--validity--complaint under s. 5 of illegal dispossession act, 2005--additional sessions judge proceeded to admit the complaint for regular hearing--prima facie illegal dispossession was found--respondents were summoned--order assailed through constitutional petition--held: order impugned was only an interim order and did not a final order, which could be brought under challenge in the constitutional jurisdiction.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 217
Appelant Side: ABDUL MAJEED
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: NOOR MUHAMMAD and 2 others
Judge Name: M. Bilal Khan
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 7(1) & 8--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--discretion--provision--order under s. 7(1) illegal dispossession act, 2005 is only discretionary with the court--the word "shall" used in s. 7(1) of the act will be read as "may" inasmuch as it is only directory provisions--petition dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 700
Appelant Side: NOOR ZAIDA
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD KHALID and 6 others
Judge Name: Tariq Shamim
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----preamble and object--scope of illegal dispossession act, is restricted to cases of illegal dispossession from immovable property at hands of a class or group of person who have antecedents of being property grabbers qabza group and the act has no applicability to ordinary cases involving disputes over possession of immovable property.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 700
Appelant Side: NOOR ZAIDA
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD KHALID and 6 others
Judge Name: Tariq Shamim
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), s. 537--summoning of accused--prima facie--contentions--if the court holding such an inquiry issues summons to accused person before issuing process, it would not vitiate the proceedings as it would be a mere irregularity curable u/s. 537 cr.p.c. the court after recording statements of the witnesses and perusing the documents, concluded that no illegal dispossession as alleged by petitioner in complaint within contemplation of s. 3 of illegal dispossession act, had taken place--material produced before court by petitioner fell short of establishing a prima facie case.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 700
Appelant Side: NOOR ZAIDA
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD KHALID and 6 others
Judge Name: Tariq Shamim
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 22(a)(b) & 537--illegal dispossession act, 2005--s. 3--miscarriage of justice--justice of peace--registration of case--accused forcibly demolished the wall--petitioner submitted an application for registration of the case which was dismissed--being dissatisfied the petitioner filed criminal complaint which was also dismissed by trial court--assailed--no finding, sentence or order passed by reversed or altered on account of error, omission or irregularity unless such error omission or irregularity has occasioned miscarriage of justice--held: court had failed to notice any miscarriage of justice on account of non-recording of reasons or that any prejudice had been caused to petitioner--perusal of material available on record did not reveal that respondents have credentials or antecedents of qabza group or land mafia--matter was sub-judice before civil court which was competent to decide the disputed between the parties.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 704
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD EHSAN and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another
Judge Name: Muhammad Muzammal Khan
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----preamble--"property grabbers" used in illegal dispossession act, 2005 as qabza group/land mafia and made it obligatory for the court of session to prima facie satisfy that persons complained had credentials antecedents of property grabbing.
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 704
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD EHSAN and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and another
Judge Name: Muhammad Muzammal Khan
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----ss. 3 & 7 & preamble--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898) s. 265-k--constitution of pakistan, 1973--art. 199--invocation of jurisdiction--illegaly/forcibly dispossessed--restoration of possession--respondent filed a complaint--petitioner moved an application u/s. 265-k cr.p.c. whereas respondent filed an applications u/s. 7 of illegal dispossession act, 2005--applications were disposed of applications allowing interim restoration of possession declining invocation of jurisdiction--in absence of any allegation or proof, complaint u/s. 3 of illegal dispossession act, 2005 could not have been entertained, proceeded or decided by addl. session judge, because pre-amble of illegal dispossession act, is explicit and is reproduced for convenience--impugned order directing return of possession to respondents was coram non judice--petitioners might have been forcibly dispossessed from land in question but they have other remedies available to them under ordinary law of land.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 727
Appelant Side: ABID
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, JHANG and 16 others
Judge Name: Tariq Shamim
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--provision--possession was taken forcibly--effect--miscarriage of justice--disregard of evidence--complaint was dismissed--assailed--petitioner admitted that possession was never been recorded in any of the khasra girdawaries fact was accepted that khasra girdawari of such land had been recorded in accused's name--civil suit was pending between the parties in which an injunctive order had been passed in favour of accused by civil court--petitioner had not been able to substantiate his claim of being illegally dispossessed by respondents from such property--petitioner had failed to bring on record any evidence to the effect that respondents had the antecedents of property grabbers or that they belonged to a "qabza group" which is a sine qua non for applicability of the provisions of illegal dispossession act--additional sessions judge was justified in dismissing the complaint filed by the petitioner as the provisions of s. 3 are prima facie not attracted in the case--petitioner had not been able to point out any illegality, infirmity or jurisdictional error in the impugned order--petition dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2007 Lahore High Court 743
Appelant Side: AMIR ABDULLAH KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE MIANWALI and another
Judge Name: Muhammad Muzammal Khan
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3/4--criminal procedure code, (v of 1898), ss. 9(4) & 265-k--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--application for acquittal was declined--assailed--applicability--jurisdiction of additional sessions judge--held: definition of courts of sessions judge given in section 9(4) of criminal procedure code--no ambiguity that an additional sessions judge is a sessions judge within meaning of illegal dispossession act, 2005.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Supreme Court 127
Appelant Side: JAVAID IQBAL
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ABDUL AZIZ and another
Judge Name: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Rana Bhagwandas
Judgment Result:Appeals dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 115--revisional jurisdiction of high court--respondents filed suit for declaration instead of suit for specific performance--suit & appeal were dismissed on the basis of defective form of the plaint--high court in its revisional jurisdiction remanded the case for decision afresh on merits after amending & correcting the form of suit--validity--held: according to plaint respondents had purchased the suit land for a definite consideration, duly paid through 2 receipts, coupled with delivery of possession--thereafter, residential houses were also constructed upon it--after more than 3 years appellant, by filing suit for possession, claimed their dispossession and demolition of said superstructure with the allegation that they had encroached upon the suit land, owned by him--obviously defective form of suit was due to ill advice by some petitions--writer or a mofussil lawyer who drafted the plaint--however appellant had not specifically denied the facts in his written statement--both lower courts miserably failed to realise that the relief asked for by the plaintiff could justifiably be moulded by converting the suit for declaration into a suit for specific performance--it was incumbent upon the courts to apply their judicial mind to ensure substantial justice--high court rightly observed that suit could not have been dismsised on account of any defect in form--remand order was upheld--appeal dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Cr.C 917
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD ASLAM SHAMI
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ZULFIQAR BUTT and others
Judge Name: M. Bilal Khan
Judgment Result:Revision petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3(1)--illegally and forcibly occupying property, assailed by petitioner--addl. session judge had initially requisitioned a report from the s.h.o.--reported--respondents were in possession of said property for the last more than fifteen years--admittedly--complaint was not maintainable, because the act was promulgated in the year 2005--section 3(1) of illegal dispossession act, 2005 creates a new offence, the punishment where of is prescribed in its sub-section (2)--penal part of statute is to be interpreted strictly and an illegal dispossession as contemplated in s. 3(1) can be punished only if it had taken places after promulgation of said act--learned counsel for petitioner has not been able to point out that impugned order is perverse, arbitrary, or fanciful--no occasion for high court to interfere in order passed by learned addl. session judge, which has been found to be a legal and well reasoned order--petition dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Karachi High Court 362
Appelant Side: QAMAR-UZ-ZAMAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE
Judge Name: Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 15--specific relief act (i of 1877), s. 9--suit for possession--decreed by both courts--respondent not vested with title, suit filed beyond period of six months of date of dispossession was barred by time--contention of--petitioner filed suit seeking injunction that he be not dispossessed on which was dismissed in view of statement made by counsel for respondent--section 15 of the limitation act the stipulated period would be excluded--held: suit is covered by section 9 of the specific relief act, 1877, after excluding the said period of time, it would be within time prescribed in provision of law.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 442
Appelant Side: S.M. ISMAIL
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY ISLAMABAD & 5 others
Judge Name: Muhammad Akhtar Shabbir and Abdul Shakoor Paracha
Judgment Result:Appeal accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 199--islamabad rent restriction ordinance, (iv of 2001), ss. 2(j)(i) & 17--intra court appeal--capital development authority leased out plots to c.d.a. staff welfare organization for setting petrol pump for thirty years in first instance and renewable for two subsequent terms of thirty years each--staff welfare organization leased one plot to appellant for thirty years on 11.10.1973--installation of petrol pump and c.n.g. station by appellant--application for renewal by applicant--extention of lease for five years subject to payment of rs. one lac per month--appellant did not decline offer and requested extension for 30 years--dispossession of appellant and sealing of premises--constitutional petition of appellant disposed of--validity--action of dispossession of appellant by staff welfare committee was without any lawful authority--appellant has been dispossessed illegally, therefore, he is entitled for restoration of the possession--rule of equity, good conscious and fairplay necessitates that period of lease of appellant be extended for further thirty years as same benefit has been availed by respondent for itself but they are relevant to extend such concession to appellant--rejection of offer of appellant for extension of lease for 30 years is not only malicious act but this also shows the arrogant attitude of respondents--intra court appeal accepted, impugned order set aside and respondents directed to extent lease for thirty years

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1008
Appelant Side: Mst. JAMEEL FATIMA and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: S.H.O., P.S. GULGASHT, MULTAN and 5 others
Judge Name: Maulvi Anwar-ul-Haq
Judgment Result:Order accordingly.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----art. 199--constitutional petition--illegal dispossession of tenants by land lord--petitioners/tenants were in lawful possession of the building under an admitted agreement--they were dispossessed in presence of the police which according to d.p.o. had gone to protect respondent, the widow of the late d.i.g. police--held: as the petitioners had been ejected otherwise than in due course of law--petition allowed and s.h.o. was directed to get the possession deliver back to petitioners until next days noon.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2006 Lahore High Court 1235
Appelant Side: FAZIL KHAN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, SIALKOT and 2 others
Judge Name: Fazal-e-Miran Chauhan
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
----s. 3--constitution of pakistan, 1973, art. 199--object and purpose--protection from illegal or forcible dispossession--determine--illegal dispossession act, 2005 was enacted to curb the act of the property grabbers and to protect the lawful owner and occupiers of immovable properties from their illegal or forcible dispossession.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Supreme Court 137
Appelant Side: CANAL VIEW CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: JAVED IQBAL and another
Judge Name: RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 9-constitution of pakistan (1973), art. 185-previous possession and wrongful dispossession proved by plaintiffs-plaintiffs were not required to establish their title to land inquestion-defendant was unable to establish source of its title as asserted-findings arrived at by trial court on question of possession of plaintiffs and dispossession on the part of defendant did not call for any interference-appraisal of evidence by both courts below was neither arbitraiy nor suffered from misreading of evidence or miscontruction of any material available on record-judgments of courts below were maintained in circumstances.
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Supreme Court 137
Appelant Side: CANAL VIEW CO-OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: JAVED IQBAL and another
Judge Name: RANA BHAGWANDAS AND SYED DEEDAR HUSSAIN SHAH
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 9-suit for possession-essentials-nature and effect of proceedings under s. 9, specific relief act 1877-essential ingredients to be established at the trial in suit for possession are; that plaintiff was in possession of land in question; that he was dispossessed by defendant; that he was dispossessed against his consent and not in accordance with law, and; that such dispossession took place within period of six months of suit-object of s. 9, specific relief act, 1877 is to discourage forcible, dispossession and to provide quicker remedy for recovery of possession where a person was dispossessed from immovable property otherwise than in due course of law-plaintiff was not required to prove his title but merely his previous possession and wrongful dispossession.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 369
Appelant Side: J. NAZAR HUSSAIN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, CHAKWAL and 4 others
Judge Name: MAULVI ANWAR-UL-HAQ
Judgment Result:Case remanded.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
---s. 9-dismissal of suit being barred by limitation-issue relating to dispossession of plaintiff within six months was left un-decided by trial court-other issue pertaining to limitation had been decided by trial court in a slip-shod manner-revision was decided by additional district judgment without appreciation of evidence-judgments of courts below were set aside and case was remanded for decision afresh in accordance with law.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 459
Appelant Side: Mst RASHIDA BIBI
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: BORDER AREA COMMITTEE through its SECRETARY, BOARD OF REVENUE and 3 others
Judge Name: SAYED ZAHID HUSSAIN
Judgment Result:Petition accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-arts. 4 & 199-dispossession of lawful allottees by border area committee-such action was not fall within ambit authority and jurisdiction of such coramittee-to enjoy protection of law and to be treated in accordance with law is inalienable right of every citizen as enshrined of article 4 of the constitution-allotment in question, having been scrutinized already by competent authority, there was no jurisdiction and authority vested in respondents to call in question either factum of allotment or efficacy of orders passed by border area committee-dispossession of petitioners forcibly from lawfully allotted land being unwarranted was declared to be an act of no legal effect,

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2004 Lahore High Court 1704
Appelant Side: LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its DIRECTOR GENERAL, LAHORE and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD SALEEM and another
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD MUZAMMAL KHAN
Judgment Result:Revision dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-ss. 34, 152-interest on decretal amount-<&.4nendment of decree-trial court was competent to award interest on the principal amount adjudged by it judgment of trial court showed that respondent/decree holder had been declared entitled to the decretal amount alongwith 8% compound interest from the date of his dispossession till the said amount is paid to him-held: trial court rightly dismissed application for amendment of decree as there was no need of such amendment. civil revision was dismissed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2003 SC-AJ&K 184
Appelant Side: AKHTAR KHAN and 9 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: SARWAR KHAN and 12 others
Judge Name: MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, C.J. AND CHAUDHARY MUHAMMAD TAJ
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-arts. 142 & 144-two suits relating to land in question-plaintiff appellants suit was for possession of land on the basis of ownership, while respondents suit was for declaration that they being in possession of land for statutory period, their possession had matured into adverse possession-plaintiff-respondeut's suit for declaration was decree on the basis of adverse possession while plaintiff-appellant's suit having been filed beyond 12 years of their possession was dismissed by high court- plaintiff respondents possession for more than 12 years before institution of suit was proved by documentary evidence coupled with oral evidence- while plaintiff appellants claim of having filed suit within 12 years of dispossession was not proved.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Karachi High Court 173
Appelant Side: QURIB ALI @ MUHAMMAD QABIL
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Dr. SHAH NAWAZ and others
Judge Name: SYED ZAWWAR HUSSAIN JAFFERI
Judgment Result:Suit decreed Appeal accepted.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-benami transaction-during employment of khairpur state, appellant purchased property in his brother's name due to embargo placed on purchase of land by government servants without permission-after his dispossession from property, appellant filed suit claiming to be its real owner having paid entire sale consideration, remained in possession of property and its title document, and paid all government dues-trial court dismissed suit and appeal filed against it was also dismissed by high court-on petition for special leave to appeal, supreme court remanded case to high court for its decision after re-appraisal of evidence-held: title documents, original challan for paying money supported by revenue receipts and entries in the name of appellant clearly proved that he had purchased suit property and made payment of sale consideration, and he was in possession of it before 1976, when he was forcibly dispossessed by respondent-held further : circular placing ban on purchase of land by government servants in khairpur state was beyond doubt, genuine, original and relevant, whereby motive for purchase of land by appellant in his brother's name stands clearly proved-besides that the fact that at relevant time, appellant was issueless made out a strong motive for a benami transaction-held further: circular imposing restriction on purchase of land by government servants did not restrain them from purchasing immovable property in the name of other person for various reasons-held-further : appellant had successfully proved his case through oral and documentary evidence-he was real owner of suit property-judgment and decree passed by civil judge and affirmed in appeal were set aside and suit of appellant was decreed with cost-trial court was directed to appoint commissioner to ascertain mesne profits and pass final decree accordingly.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 787
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD RAMZAN KHAN (deceased) through HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES and another
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: MUHAMMAD AMIR KHAN and another
Judge Name: MAULVI ANWARUL-HAQ
Judgment Result:Petition allowed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--s. 115-revision-bifurcation ofkhatoonis and dispossession of owner in possession on basis of entries in revenue record-civil suit failed-appeal dismissed by addl. district judge-challenge to-addition of two khatoonis against one-validity-dispossesison of co-owner-legality-in halqadaran-zamin for the year 1979-80 khata remained same le. single- -however, partwari proceeded to add two khatunis nos. 60 he 61- against khatooni no. 60, he entered respondent no. 1 as tenant and in balance land against khatooni no. 61, petitions and others are in possession-jugglery performed by patwari becomes very apparent when examines khata girdawari-for rabi 1980 patwari managed to insert respondent no. 1 with reference to mutation in respect of land which in fact is in possession of petitioners as co-owners~thus plain reading of documents on record discloses very crude attempt on part of espondent to take over possession of suit land from petitioners with the help of patwari~lt is now well settled that co-owner in possession cannot be dispossessed by other co-owner otherwise than by filing suit for partition or for possession u/s. 9 of specific relief act-held: impugnedjudgments and decrees are suffering from material irregularity-petition allowed.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2001 Lahore High Court 1160
Appelant Side: MUHAMMAD DIN
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: Mst ZENAB BIBI and 3 others
Judge Name: TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JlLANI
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--ss. 8 & 9--constitution of pakistan (1973), art. 199-suit for recovery of possession filed not on basis of title but on basis of possession-appeal against dismissal of suit-competency--plantiffs, entitlement to claim possession-provision of s. 8 specific relief act, 1877, mandates that person seeking recovery of possession of immovable property on basis of title can file suit for ejectment in the manner prescribed by c.p.c.- provision of s. 9, specific relief act 1877, postulate no reference of title of person dispossessed with regard to property in question, and suit has to be brought within 6 months of dispossession-there was, however, no time limit under s. 8, specific relief act, 1877, within which suit can be filed-plaintiff s suit based on her possessory title filed after two years of her dispossession was a suit not under s. 9 but under s. 8 of specific relief act, 1877, which provides right of appeal-plantiff on dismissal of her suit was, thus, competent to file appeal-appellate court, however, wrongly treated plaintiffs suit to be under s. 9, specific relief act, 1877- finding on possessory title having not been challenged, the same had attained finality-evidence on record clearly indicated that defendant was in illegal possession of property in question, therefore, court below had rightly directed him to pay mense profit and such finding having not been challenged had also attained finality.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Supreme Court 1071
Appelant Side: Mst. RESHAM BIBI and others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: LAL DIN and others
Judge Name: SAIDUZZAMAN SIDDIQUI, SH. IJAZ NISAR, KAMAL MANSUR ALAM
Judgment Result:Appeal dismissed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-ss. 8 & 9-co-sharer dispossess by other co-sharer-remedy to regain possession-after dispossession of a co-sharer by other co-sharer he has two remedies for seeking redress, namely, a suit under section 9 of specific relief act and proceedings for partition of joint property ~a third remedy that is an ordinary suit for restoration of exclusive possession wold amount to placing one set of co-sharers in a much more advantageous position as compared to other for which there is no warrant in law or equity-where evidence on record does not show that title of appellants in respect of disputed land was superior to that of respondents-mere fact that appellants remained in exclusive possession of disputed land for a long time would not make any difference, as admitted position in case is that both parties were joint owners in abadi deh and shamlat deh which included disputed portion of land.

To view full case click on Full Case Description
Displaying Results for dispossession
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 271
Appelant Side: ABDUL HAQ and 2 others
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: RESIDENT MAGISTRATE UCH SHARIF, TEH. AHMEDPUR EAST, DISTT. BAHAWALPUR and 6 others
Judge Name: MIAN ALLAH NAWAZ AND MUHAMMAD ZAFAR YASIN
Judgment Result:Appeal allowed.
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
-s. 3-specinc relief act, 1877 (i of 1877) s. 9~punjab urban rent restriction ordinance 1959, (w.p. ord. vi of 1959) s. 13~punjab local government ordinance 1979, (vi of 1979), s. 166-tenants of municipal committee-dispossession of-writ against-dismissal of-ica against--it is settled law that a tenant cannot be evicted from his tenement without due process of law- appellants were tenants of municipal committee- but their shops were sold to respondents-relationship between appellants and respondents was that of a landlord and tenants and was governed by provisions of punjab urban rent restriction ordinance, 1959, but appellants were evicted from their tenement without any order from forum of competent jurisdiction-action of dispossession was neither appealable u/s. 116 of ord. 1979, nor there was any other remedy available except u/s. 9 of specific relief, act, which is not adequate- appellants were put back to possession-impugned order set aside- appeal allowed.
Citation Name: PLJ 2000 Lahore High Court 1159
Appelant Side: EHSAN ULLAH
V e r s u s
Opponent Side: ZILA COUNCIL GUJRANWALA etc
Judge Name: IHSAN-UL-HAQ CHAUDHRY
Judgment Result:Petition dismissed
Other Law Journal References: Coming Soon
--o. xxxix, rr. 2-a & 25 & o.xlii, r. 1-violation of ad-interim injunction-ad-interim injunction of specified date was neither extended nor specifically vacated--effecl--r. 2-a of o. xxxix c.p.c. being directory in nature if condition laid down in proviso to that rule under fulfilled and no specific orders existed for vacation of ad-interim order, presumption would be that court had granted requisite extension within the purview of proviso to r. 2-a of o.xxxdc, c.p.c.-where ad-interim injunction was neither extended nor specifically vacated, same would he deemed to be effective and operative-appellant had admitted that he had knowledge of ad-interim injunction granted in favour of respondent therefore, dispossession of respondent by him on pretext that the same was result of compromise would be of no avail to him and he would be deemed to have violated ad-interim injunction-respondent could not take refuge under the cover that while deciding matter of disobedience of ad-interim injunctions proper procedure was not followed whereas proper issues were framed which covered controversy between parties and appellant was fully aware of charge against him vis-a-uis disobedience of order passed by court on specified date-petitioner had not been able to establish as to what prejudice had been caused to him in those proceedings, especially when respondent had discharged initial burden of charge of dispossession while appellate had failed to establish his plea that he got possession of property in question on basis of compromise having been effected between himself and respondent-no misreading or non-reading of evidence/material on record relating to disobedience of specific order of court was pointed out-court below had rightly concluded on basis of evidence on record that appellant had dispossessed respondent from property in question, in violation of order of court and had rightly sentenced him for such violation-punishment awarded to appellant was maintained and he was also directed to hand over possession of property in question, to respondent.

To view full case click on Full Case Description

No comments:

Post a Comment