Summary: PLJ 2013 Islamabad 278 Present Muhammad Anwar Khan Kasi CJ MUMTAZ AHMAD SIDDIQUI - - Petitioner versus TAHIR ASLAM MUFTI and 11 others - - Respondents WP Nos 666 of 2012 and 684 of 2013 decided on 1762013 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005) Ss 3 4 5 7 - - ConstitutionalP etition - - Private complaint - - Lodging of FIR was not bar to avail remedy under Illegal Dispossession Act - - Validity - - It is also settled law that lodging of FIR is not a bar to avail remedy under Act 2005 and would not attract rule of double jeopardy because rule was attracted where accused had been tried for offence charged with by competent Court and there is a judgment or order of conviction or acquittal [P 282] A PLD 1990 SC 1 PLD 2012 Balochistan 1489 ref Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 (XI of 2005) - - - - - - S 7 - - Scope - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Restoration of possession - - Second impugned order is also not sustainable in eyes of law as Illegal Dispossession Act is not only meant for land mafia but also provides protection to lawful owners and occupants of the property as against unauthorized and illegal occupants - - Restoration of possession uS 7 of Act itself is an admitted fact of dispossession and therefore complaint could not had been dismissed without proper trial [Pp 282 283] B Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 (XI of 2005) - - - - - - Ss 3 4 5 7 - - Constitution of Pakistan 1973 Art 199 - - Constitutional petition - - Private complaint dismissal of - - Allegations of causing hindrance and obstruction during process of execution - - Remedies could be availed under civil or criminal law - - Question of - - Whether facts and circumstances of the case deserve initiation of proceedings - - Determination - - Suit for specific performance against owner of suit and in presence of suit proceedings cannot proceed - - Validity - - For redressal of his grievance if any might avail proper remedy before appropriate forum under statute but it does not mean that he can take law into his own hands - - If such practice is allowed then there will be no end to any litigation and result would be that ultimately the citizens who had just gained confidence in judicial system of the country once again shall be losing their hopes which is no way can be allowed - - High Court is also under obligation to protect and preserve constitution and law besides guarantees provided under Constitution - - Litigants cannot be allowed to make decisions parallel to one administered by Courts after due process of law - - Law provides remedies to every mischief - - If a person is aggrieved he might move proper forum and might get relief [P 283] C Mr Rafaqat Islam Awan Advocate for Petitioner Mr Munawar Hussain Abbasi Advocate for Respondents Mr Shabbir Ahmad Abbasi Learned Standing Counsel for StateJudgement Result:Petitions allowed

Summary: PLJ 2013 SC (AJK) 309 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Muhammad Azam Khan CJ Raja Saeed Akram Khan Sardar Muhammad Sadiq Khan JJ DEPUTY COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE CIRCLE - 10 (PROFESSIONAL) MUZAFFARABAD AK and another - - Appellants versus Ms NEELUM JHELUM HYDRO POWER COMPANY (PVT) LTD through (Director Civil) NJHPC and others - - Respondents CA No 75 of 2012 and Civil Misc No 175 of 2012 decided on 672012 (On appeal from the judgment of High Court dated 2962012 in Writ Petition No 128012) Writ Petition - - - - - - Before admitting writ petition issuance of notice to party - - Affected to show cause - - Validity - - Admission of Writ Petition for regular hearing is necessary [P 314] A AJK Interim Constitution Act 1974 (VIII of 1974) - - - - - - S 44 - A - - AJK Courts and Laws Code 1949 S 52 - - Institution of petitions andg rant of Writ Rules 1975 R 3 - - High Court Procedure Rules 1984 - - Rr 32 to 38 - - Final disposal of writ petition without admitting it for regular hearing - - In presence of remedy by way of appeal writ petition was not maintainable and liable to be dismissed - - High Court instead of issuing stay order disposed of writ petition in limine and granted final relief - - No conflict between rules - - Writ Rules 1975 were framed uS 52 of Courts and Laws Code 1949 while AJK High Court ProcedureR ules were framed uS 44 of Act 1944 and S 52 of Code - - Held If there isc onflict between provisions of law then later provision shall prevail since High Court Procedure Rules provide complete mechanism and were framed under Constitution writs shall be governed by Rules framed under provision of Act - - Since High Court has finally disposed of writ petition without admitting for regular hearing without summoning - - A writ petition cannot be finally disposed of without admitting it for regular hearing without notice for filing objections written statements and hearing arguments - - High Court disposed of writ petition in limine and granted a part relief prayed by petitioner - - Writ petition cannot be finally disposed of without first admitting it for regular hearing providing opportunity for filing written statements and order was passed without complying with rules of High Court Procedure Rules - - Writ petition cannot be finally disposed of without admitting it for regular hearing issuing notice to other party seeking objections and hearing parties but order of High Court whereby notice for seizing accounts had been ordered to remain in abeyance shall remain operative till that time as granted by High Court - - Appeal was disposed of [Pp 315 316 317] B C D G Income Tax Ordinance 2001 - - - - - - Ss 148 162 - - Controversy without unnecessary delay - - Advance tax - - During pendency of appeal seized bank account - - High Court disposed of writ petition in limine with direction that the order in writ petition would remain in abeyance till approaches proper tribunal for redressal of grievance - - Judgment of High Court was against law and Rules 1984 - - Order fors eizure of accounts - - Validity - - If order of seizure of accounts by appellants remains in operation a heavy loss will occur to national exchequer - - Due to seizure of accounts salaries to employees of company and payment to contractor could not be made therefore order passed by High Court was in interest of justice - - Such power always vests in every Court for doing complete justice [P] E F Ch Muhammad Afzal Advocate for Appellants Mr Sajid Hussain Abbasi and Sardar Abdul Razik Khan Advocates for RespondentsJudgement Result:Appeal disposed of

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.