Summary: NAB (Post arrest bail granted , on the ground, hardship and 56 witnesses have examined , accused are in Custody since 2 years )

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2---Temporary injunction---Scope---Petitioner/plaintiff soughtrestraining order against the respondents/defendants contending that he was owner-inpossession of the suit-property after purchasing it from the previous owner---Respondentscontended that the previous owner had occupied the area of rainy drain for which matter wasreferred to the concerned Tehsildar---Held, that injunction was not to be granted only on thebasis that prima-facie case existed in favour of the plaintiff---Courts were required to takeinto consideration whether the question of balance of convenience or irreparable loss, to theparty seeking such relief, co-existed or not---For grant or refusal of the injunction , pleadingdocuments and supporting evidence was to be examined and the assessment was to be madetentatively , however, where complicated question about merit of the case required framingof issues and evidence was involved, then the injunction order was not to be issued---In thepresent case, report of the concerned Tehsildar (Revenue Officer) revealed that property-inquestion was acquired by the Irrigation Department in the year 1991; award was passed andamount was also paid---Said property was not incorporated in the revenue record in the nameof Provincial Government i.e. Irrigation Department--- Petitioner/plaintiff had failed to makeout a prima facie arguable case for grant of injunction in his favour and balance ofconvenience also did not lie in his favour---No illegality or infirmity was found in impugnedorders passed by both the Courts below---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Marghub Siddiqi v. Hamid Ahmed Khan and 2 others 1974 SCMR 519 ref.

Summary: PLJ 2020 Peshawar 124 Present Muhammad Naeem Anwar J BAHADAR and 82 others - - Petitioners versus COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION and 13 others - - Respondents CR No 847 - P of 2009 decided on 232020 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - S 115 - - Specific Relief Act 1877 S 42 - - Land Acquisition Act 1894 S 4 - - Suit for declaration - - Decreed - - Appeal - - Dismissed - - Acquisition of land - - Entitlement for compensation - - Preparation of acquittance roll - - Payment of compensation - - Shamilat deh - - Notification - - Challenge to - - Scanning of evidence as per discussion of Para No 4 of judgment clearly demonstrate that petitioners are owners of Estate of Galla which was acquired - - Lengthy statement of ADK strengthened version of petitioners when record was documented since 1870 till current Jamabandi Viewing from another angle when unbroken record was surfaced and witness was cross - examined nothing regarding ownership of petitioners either of their exclusive owned property or of Shamilate of Galla was gleaned which tantamount to an admission of respondents that petitioners were owners of shamilat of Galla which was acquired by respondents - - Respondents from day first when notification under section 4 of Land Acquisition Act 1894 was issued in year 1994 till now not sure that what was nature of suit properly from whom they have acquiring it to whom compensation was to be paid what would be mode for preparation of Acquittance Role and how column of ownership of Shamilat of Galla would be interpreted - - This confusion in their mind has continued this controversy spreading over two and half decades - - Petitioners are recorded owners of estate of Galla and their shares from shamilat were acquired thus they are entitled for compensation of it - - All owners in village Galla are also joint owners of Shamilat of it and their shares shall be proportionate to size of their holding vis - a - vis total land in village excluding malikan - e - qabza - - It was absolute right of petitioners to claim compensation as there can be no cavil with proposition that no acquisition without compensation - - Apex Court in case titled Land Acquisition Collector and others - - Principle that the main object of Land Acquisition Act 1894 is to provide complete indemnity to owners and no property has to be acquired without proper and adequate compensation - - Claim of petitioners is very simple that they are entitled for compensation of their shares in acquired property and they have claimed nothing against others therefore no one would be adversely affected as compensation would be paid by respondents to them and non - inclusion of their names in acquittance role is against fact and law as well - - If an amount of compensation was paid to any person who was not legally entitled for same then it would be for respondents to adopt proper course but in such circumstances petitionersland owners would not be held responsible therefore respondents are bound to pay compensation of acquired property to petitioners as per their entitlement - - Revision petition was allowed [Pp 129 130 131] A B C D E PLD 2010 SC 719 2017 YLR 1909 and PLD 1990 SC 99 ref Mr Muhammad Taif Khan Advocate for Petitioners Mr Rehmanullah Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Revision petition allowed

Summary: Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -S. 302(b)-Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)-Qatl-i-amd-Leave to appeal, petition for-Contentions of accused that that there was a delay of about three hours in the registration of FIR: that the doctor stated in his cross examination that death might have been caused twelve hours prior to the postmortem examination; that as per prosecution case apart from the accused, two other co-accused persons also caused kasi blows on the head of the deceased, whereas another co-accused caused a blunt injury on the back of the deceased; that the doctor observed that the three injuries on the body of deceased individually and collectively were sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature; that the Trial Court while disbelieving the evidence of complainant and a prosecution witness acquitted all three co-accused persons; that the appeal against acquittal of said co-accused persons was dismissed by the High Court through the impugned judgment: that motive behind the occurrence was disbelieved by the High Court and kasi recovered on pointation of accused was not blood stained; that the same set of evidence which had been disbelieved by the courts below qua acquitted co-accused persons could not be relied to convict the accused on a capital charge particularly when there was no independent corroboration-Held, that said contentions needed consideration-Leave to appeal was granted to re-appraise the entire evidence on record for safe administration of justice. Muhammad Amjad Rafiq, Additional P.G., Punjab for the State.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: CR: Against order dated 01-02-2020 whereby application for appropriate order be dismissed

Summary: Customs Act (IV of 1969)-------Ss.168 & 181---SRO No. 499(I)/2009 dated 13-06-2009---Seizure of things liable toconfiscation---Option to pay fine in lieu of confiscated goods---Scope---Department assailedorder passed by Appellate Tribunal whereby the vehicle used in smuggling was released toits owner against 20% redemption fine on the customs value---Validity---Secret cavities ofthe seized vehicle were found loaded with foreign origin goods in commercial quantity,which were ordered to be confiscated by the Additional Collector vide order-in-original asneither anyone came forward to claim ownership of the smuggled goods nor any appeal wasfiled against the said order to the extent of confiscation of the smuggled goods---Seizedvehicle being wholly used for the purpose of smuggling and in the light of SRO No.499(I)/2009 dated 13-06-2009, no option could be given to the owner to pay fine in lieu ofconfiscation of the seized vehicle---Adjudication officer had rightly ordered confiscation ofthe seized vehicle whereas the order passed by Appellate Tribunal was in violation of theSRO as well as the provisions of S.181 of the Customs Act, 1969---Reference applicationwas allowed.

Summary: GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Peshawar and others-Respondents Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural Produce Markets General Rules, 2011- -R. 71(v)-Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural and Livestock Produce Markets Act (IV of 2007), Ss. 16 & 36-Employees of Market Committee seeking regularization in service-Termination from services-Legality-Terms and conditions of the employees as reflected in the different appointment orders would show that the same were of permanent and regular nature-Employees of the Market Committee who had spent/rendered services in the Committee since the year 1994-95 and that too without any blemish, and in spite of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural and Livestock Produce Markets Act, 2007 ('the 2007 Act'), the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Agricultural Produce Markets General Rules, 2011 ('the 2011 Rules'), and Bye-laws of 2013 made under the 2007 Act, had been made rolling stones struggling for their fundamental rights-Action of the competent authorities to terminate the employees and to make fresh appointments orders was oppressive and against their fundamental rights specially when R. 71(v) of the 2011 Rules also gave protection to the persons already employed-While serving the Market Committee for such a long time, almost all of the employees would have lost their chance of fresh appointments in other Government departments-In such circumstances the decision of the government and the Market Committee for termination of the employees or their fresh appointments under the Act 2007, the 2011 Rules and relevant Bye-laws of 2013, could not be concurred with-Order of termination of the employees, being illegal and unlawful, and having no legal effect, was set aside with the direction to the Provincial Government and the Market Committee to consider regularization of the services of the employees in accordance with law.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 ----S. 30-A; West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962----Inheritance rights; Limited estate; Proprietary rights. Under S. 30-A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, the estate held by a female is a limited estate governed by customary law. Upon the promulgation of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, the limited estate terminates, and inheritance rights are governed by Muslim Law. The widow’s entitlement is restricted to her share under Islamic inheritance principles, and any claim exceeding that is untenable. Reliance placed on Mst. Began v. Mst. Bai (1983 SCMR 80). (b) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ----O. XIV, R. 1; Framing of issues----Non-framing of issues; Effect on judgment. Non-framing of specific issues does not automatically vitiate a judgment if parties had the opportunity to present their evidence on the relevant matters. Courts are not obligated to remand a case due to the absence of specific issues unless prejudice is demonstrated. A party claiming such prejudice must raise the objection at the earliest opportunity and consistently pursue it in appellate forums. Reliance placed on Mushtaq Ahmad alias Mushtaq Hussain v. Mst. Hakim Bibi (PLD 1969 SC 338). (c) Evidence Law ----Burden of proof; Relationship with propositus----Requirement of strong evidence. Third-party appellants contesting the relationship of plaintiffs with the propositus (original tenant) must present convincing and direct evidence to refute the claim. Failure to do so strengthens the presumption of legitimacy of the plaintiffs' relationship as collaterals. Appellants failed to meet this burden. (d) Customary Law; Transition to Islamic Law ----Termination of limited estate under custom----Application of Muslim Personal Law. Customary inheritance rights under limited estate provisions are overridden by the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962, which grants inheritance rights based on Islamic principles. Past cases decided before the incorporation of S. 30-A in 1944 were held inapplicable to the present matter. -----Cited Cases: Mst. Began v. Mst. Bai (1983 SCMR 80) Mushtaq Ahmad alias Mushtaq Hussain v. Mst. Hakim Bibi (PLD 1969 SC 338) Ilam Din v. Muhammad Din (PLD 1964 SC 842)