Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 2, 4, 5 & 6---Jurisdiction of Federal Ombudsperson---Moveable property---Vehicles registered in complainant’s name---Scope---Complainant alleged that four vehicles owned by her were illegally possessed by her husband—Three of the vehicles were registered in her name, two at Islamabad and one at Lahore—Held, under S.2, “property” includes both movable and immovable property; hence, vehicles fall within the definition of property under the Act—The Federal Ombudsperson therefore had jurisdiction under S.4 to entertain the complaint in respect of vehicles registered within Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT). (b) Reference to Civil Court---Discretion of Ombudsperson---Section 6 of the Act confers discretion upon the Ombudsperson to refer a matter to the Civil Court only where intricate adjudication or detailed evidence is required—In present case, ownership and location of vehicles stood proved through registration record; no complex questions arose—Application under S.6 for reference to Civil Court rejected as unnecessary and dilatory. (c) Jurisdictional limitation---Vehicles outside ICT---Complaint regarding a vehicle registered at Lahore---Held, outside the territorial jurisdiction of the Federal Ombudsperson under S.1(2) of the Act—Complainant may seek relief before the competent provincial forum. (d) Implementation of order---Administrative assistance---Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad and Excise & Taxation Officer directed under S.5 to restore possession of two vehicles (Registration Nos. LK-478 and VG-304) to complainant and submit compliance report within seven days. (e) Disposition— Complaint partly accepted; relief confined to vehicles registered at Islamabad; application under S.6 dismissed; directions issued for restoration of possession under S.5 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Jurisdiction and relief---Scope---Complainant, a woman alleging deprivation of her property rights in Jinnah Garden Society, Islamabad, appeared through special power of attorney—Respondent repeatedly failed to cross-examine the complainant despite several opportunities and imposition of cost—Held, under the special Act, complaints must be decided expeditiously; deliberate delay by respondents constitutes misuse of process—Complaint supported by unrebutted affidavit warranted relief under Ss.4 & 5 of the Act. (b) Right of cross-examination---Closure of right---Failure to pay cost and repeated non-appearance---Respondent’s persistent absence and non-payment of cost resulted in closure of right to cross-examine—Such conduct held to obstruct the course of justice; forum rightly proceeded ex parte to decide matter on available record. (c) Expeditious disposal---Mandatory nature---Purpose of special statute---The Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 is a social welfare legislation ensuring prompt restoration of women’s proprietary rights—Any tactic to delay proceedings runs contrary to legislative intent and is liable to be discouraged. (d) Administrative implementation---Restoration of possession and title---Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad directed under S.5 to restore or confer possession or title of property upon the complainant and to take all necessary steps to perfect such title. (e) Disposition— Complaint allowed; relief granted to complainant under Ss.4 & 5 of the Act; Respondent’s right of cross-examination closed due to willful default and non-payment of cost.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Ownership and possession---Registered sale deeds---Presumption of correctness---Complainant purchased two plots measuring 10 marla and 5 marla through registered sale deeds dated 18-02-1997 and 26-12-1997 respectively, duly entered and attested in the revenue record vide mutations No. 1909 and 2317—Held, a registered sale deed carries a presumption of correctness unless rebutted by cogent evidence; existence of valid registered deeds constitutes proof of ownership. (b) Women’s Property Rights---Scope and remedy under Act, 2020 ----Where a woman has been unlawfully deprived of ownership or possession of property, the Federal Ombudsperson is competent under S.5 to order restoration of possession—Requirement imposed by respondent society that complainant surrender her registered deeds before being given possession was unjustified, illogical, and without legal basis. (c) Contractual settlement---Option for substitute property ----If parties mutually agree to substitute the plots with alternate land, such arrangement may be reduced into a formal agreement, but surrender of registered deeds cannot be compelled unilaterally without equivalent transfer or consent of complainant. (d) Implementation of orders---Administrative assistance ----Revenue officer directed to restore possession of the subject property to the complainant and may obtain assistance from local police for enforcement—Compliance report ordered to be submitted by specified date. (e) Disposition— Complaint allowed; possession of plots restored to complainant under S.5 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020; directions issued to revenue authorities for implementation.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Inheritance---Deceased father’s estate---Jurisdiction---Complainants (daughters) alleged that their brothers deprived them of ownership and possession of inherited property situated partly in Islamabad and partly in Rawalpindi—Respondents objected to forum’s jurisdiction on ground that part of the property was outside Islamabad—Held, Ombudsman had jurisdiction over properties situated within Islamabad Capital Territory, but not over immovable property located in Rawalpindi District. (b) Women’s right to inheritance---Scope of protection under the Act ----Revenue record confirmed that land measuring 5 kanal 1 marla 3 sarsai in Moza Tarlai Kalan, Islamabad remained in the name of deceased father—Ombudsman directed revenue authorities to enter and attest inheritance mutation in favour of all legal heirs, including complainants, according to their Sharia shares—Land situated in Moza Jhang Sayedan found to have been sold by deceased during his lifetime; thus excluded from inheritance. (c) Civil remedies---Challenge to alienation of ancestral property ----Where deceased transferred property during lifetime through validly attested mutations, heirs dissatisfied with such transactions may challenge validity before competent Civil Court—Ombudsman cannot adjudicate upon title disputes or declare such transfers void. (d) Property within CDA jurisdiction ----Built-up house situated in Sector I-8/1, Islamabad, found in name of deceased—CDA directed to scrutinize ownership documents and transfer the property to legal heirs according to their Sharia shares. (e) Disposition — Complaint partly allowed. Revenue Officer Moza Tarlai Kalan directed to attest inheritance mutation and restore possession to complainants as per Sharia entitlement. Properties outside Islamabad held beyond Ombudsman’s jurisdiction; challenge to prior transfers left open to Civil Court.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Scope and maintainability---Complaint by wife against husband---Complainant, though legally wedded wife, was living separately due to strained relations—Alleged neglect, financial abandonment, and failure of husband to maintain her and their son—Held, while Act primarily concerns protection of women’s proprietary rights, Ombudsman may exercise equitable jurisdiction to ensure a woman’s right to shelter and sustenance when deprived through coercion, neglect, or abandonment by spouse. (b) Family relationship---Maintenance of wife and minor child---Quantum of maintenance---Respondent admitted marital relationship and agreed to provide separate residence and pay maintenance—His income assessed at Rs.34,000/- per month—Forum, considering financial circumstances and statutory protection of women, directed payment of Rs.15,000/- per month for joint maintenance of wife and child. (c) Visitation rights---Child’s welfare and parental access ----Respondent complained of being denied access to son—Forum, balancing welfare of minor with parental rights, permitted father to meet child once a week from dawn to dusk, with obligation to return child to mother before sunset—Complainant or her family members restrained from creating any hindrance in visitation. (d) Judicial discretion---Equitable relief under social welfare statute ----Forum emphasized that the Act’s protective intent extends to securing women’s dignity and welfare in property or residence-related disputes arising from marital neglect—Ombudsman empowered to mould relief to ensure fairness and humane outcome. (e) Disposition — Complaint disposed of. Respondent directed to pay Rs.15,000/- per month as maintenance to complainant for herself and her minor son, and allowed weekly visitation rights. Complainant permitted to continue residing with her parents at her own option.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----S. 4---Inheritance---Claim by female heir against brother regarding ancestral property---Complainant (sister) alleged that Respondent (brother) denied her share in ancestral house located in Village Saidpur, Islamabad, and threatened her—Commission appointed by Ombudsperson to ascertain factual position of property division—Commission’s report confirmed that the disputed house was already partitioned, each party having separate portions and independent entrances—Held, Complainant’s claim of exclusion from inheritance not supported by evidence. (b) Commission report---Evidentiary value---Where commission is appointed to inspect site in presence of both parties, its findings regarding existing partition carry conclusive weight unless rebutted by contrary material---Report showing separate access and occupancy for each sibling held sufficient to negate allegation of deprivation. (c) Family obligations---Moral and equitable duty of brother toward sister---Although complaint not substantiated regarding denial of inheritance, Respondent being brother directed to facilitate Complainant’s peaceful use of premises and permit access to common roof area, maintaining familial care and protection. (d) Disposition— Complaint disposed of—Respondent directed to provide all necessary facilities to Complainant, including access to roof and general care, in recognition of her status as co-heir and sister—No further action required.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 3, 5 & 9---Restoration of possession---Fraudulent sale of plots by private housing society---Complainant, a woman purchaser, bought two plots (Nos. 6198 & 6199, Phase-Ali, Ghauri Town, Islamabad) from respondents Raja Ali Akbar and Abdul Rehman on 16-12-2016 after paying full sale consideration of Rs. 2.5 million---Respondents failed to transfer or deliver possession despite repeated promises and undertakings---Held, respondents’ conduct amounted to fraudulent deprivation of ownership and possession, attracting jurisdiction under the Act. (b) Role of illegal housing societies---Public interest observations ----Housing fraud---Federal Ombudsman lamented the mushroom growth of unregulated housing schemes exploiting citizens and urged immediate government intervention to curb their fraudulent activities—Court observed that Ghauri Town was a controversial and illegal society deceiving the public and that its management engaged in fraud against the complainant. (c) Local Commission—Inquiry and findings ----Investigation and enforcement---Local commission appointed to verify possession reported that despite demarcation and issuance of false “possession certificates,” physical possession was never delivered—Commission recommended issuance of genuine transfer and possession letters and erection of boundary wall to protect complainant’s interest. (d) Implementation and enforcement powers of Ombudsman ----Enforcement mechanism---Ombudsman invoked Ss. 3, 5 & 9 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020, read with S. 10 of the Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act, 2013, holding that the Ombudsman enjoys powers of a civil court for implementation of orders including enforcement under Order XXI CPC—SSP Operations, Islamabad, was directed to ensure delivery of possession and to use lawful force if respondents resisted. (e) Professional misconduct of counsel ----Officer of the court---Counsel representing respondents repeatedly failed to honour commitments and obstructed implementation—Ombudsman expressed displeasure and directed that his conduct be brought to the notice of Islamabad Bar Council for appropriate disciplinary action. (f) Disposition — Complaint allowed. SSP Operations Islamabad directed under Ss. 3, 5 & 9 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020, to restore possession of Plot Nos. 6198 and 6199 (25x50 each, Phase-Ali, Ghauri Town, Islamabad) to complainant Bakht Bibi and use lawful force if necessary to ensure execution of order. Respondents’ conduct and counsel’s obstruction condemned. Order to be executed stricto senso in accordance with special legislation.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----S. 5---Inheritance---Restoration of ownership and possession---Complainants, daughters of deceased owner, filed complaint under the Act claiming their *shari* shares in inherited land comprising khasra Nos. 1293/43, 53, 52, 50 and 1294/41, Moza Pahag Sihala, Islamabad—Respondents, their brothers, had deprived them of ownership and possession—Revenue record and mutation No. 1728 confirmed complainants’ ownership of eight shares—Held, complainants unlawfully deprived of their property rights. (b) Ex parte proceedings---Unrebutted evidence---Respondents proceeded ex parte—Affidavits and documentary record produced by complainants remained unchallenged—Held, sufficient proof existed to establish ownership and illegal deprivation. (c) Summary nature of proceedings---No further probe required ----Where claim is supported by revenue record and remains unrebutted, Ombudsman may decide summarily under S. 5 without detailed inquiry or further evidence. (d) Deputy Commissioner’s duty---Implementation of order ----S. 5---Deputy Commissioner Islamabad directed to take steps to restore or confer possession and title of property to complainants and to submit compliance report by the specified date. (e) Disposition — Complaint allowed. Complainants Arbeena Bibi, Suraya Begum, and Walayat Jan declared lawful owners of their inherited shares in land comprising khasra Nos. 1293/43, 53, 52, 50 and 1294/41, Moza Pahag Sihala, Islamabad. Deputy Commissioner Islamabad directed under S. 5 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020, to restore possession and title to complainants and submit compliance report by 03-08-2022.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ex parte proceedings---Unrebutted evidence---Respondent placed ex parte for persistent non-appearance and failure to pursue application seeking recall of ex parte order—Complainant recorded her examination-in-chief and produced supporting witness—Held, unrebutted ex parte evidence deemed admitted, warranting decision in complainant’s favour. (b) Application for setting aside ex parte order---Non-prosecution ----Respondent’s application dated 07-07-2022 for setting aside ex parte proceedings dismissed for non-prosecution—Repeated absence showed lack of bona fide intent to contest proceedings. (c) Burden of proof---Effect of non-cross-examination ----Evidence produced by complainant, having remained unchallenged, attained finality—No rebuttal or counter-evidence brought on record to discredit complainant’s claim. (d) Summary adjudication---Scope under the Act ----Where documentary and oral evidence establish deprivation of woman’s property rights and stand unrebutted, Ombudsman justified in summarily granting relief under the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020. (e) Disposition — Complaint allowed. Ex parte evidence of complainant Naila Zafar accepted as proved. Relief granted as prayed. Respondent’s application for recall of ex parte order dismissed for non-prosecution. Case disposed of accordingly.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Registered sale deed---Presumption of validity---Complainant, daughter of Muhammad Nazir, purchased 2½ marla portion of House No. ZA-1307 through registered sale deed No. 5817 dated 16-09-2014—Respondent, her brother, occupied that portion and refused to hand over possession—Held, registered sale deed carried presumption of correctness under law, and respondent, being an attesting witness to the same, was estopped from disputing its authenticity. (b) Admission by attesting witness---Evidentiary value ----Respondent admitted his status as a witness to complainant’s sale deed during cross-examination—Such admission rendered subsequent denial immaterial and further strengthened complainant’s claim to ownership and possession. (c) Family distribution of property---Equal shares ----Father of parties had distributed the house equally among descendants through multiple registered deeds; complainant’s entitlement to 2½ marla clearly demarcated by boundaries described in the deed—Held, she was entitled to delivery of possession of that specific portion. (d) Exercise of influence by respondent---Police service ----Respondent’s use of official position as police officer to retain illegal possession condemned—Forum emphasized protection of women’s property rights irrespective of social or official status of male relatives. (e) Relief and direction ----Ombudsman directed restoration of possession of 2½ marla portion to complainant Zaib-un-Nisa within the boundaries defined in her registered sale deed—Respondent’s share to remain confined to area delineated in his own registered deed. (f) Disposition — Complaint allowed. Respondent Muhammad Sarfraz directed to deliver possession of 2½ marla portion of House No. ZA-1307 to complainant Zaib-un-Nisa as per boundaries specified in sale deed No. 5817 dated 16-09-2014. Each party entitled to portion transferred to them through separate deeds. Case disposed of.