Summary: Petitioner land falls adjacent and allached with the Khasra wherein National Police School simly dam is established. He is aggrieved the officials of police Shcool are harassing traspassing and encroaching his land and has in connivance issued acquisition Notice through collector. Seeks protection.

Summary: Seeking direction for appoint the petitioner in BS-04 as per office Mamorandum dated 12.07.2010 and 24.06.2015 and 17.04.2018 and setting aside office memrandum dated 26.08.2018 whrein representatioin of the petitioner was declined.

Summary: Petitioner purchased a land in Mauza Tumair for establishing an university. The land is being acquired for establishing Anti terrorist School. Challenges the very acquisition.

Summary: Challenges notice issued U/s 160 Cr.P.C. in an inquiry

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 199 Writ petition—Scope—Police inaction—Investigation and recording of cross-version—Petitioner, wife of deceased Dr. Muhammad Saeed, sought directions to register her cross-version against stepchildren of the deceased and take action against Police officials for allegedly neglecting evidence—Held, petitioner had already been investigated, declared innocent by the I.O., and placed in column No. 2 of Challan, but the Judicial Magistrate disagreed—Private complaint proceeded and ultimately both the petitioner and co-accused were acquitted during the pendency of writ petition—High Court held that once a full trial had concluded, issuing fresh directions for investigation would be futile—Petitioner has alternative remedy of filing private complaint—Petition dismissed as misconceived. Cited Case: PLD 2018 SC 595 (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898: ----S. 161, 173, 22-A & 22-B Investigation—Cross-version—Role of Magistrate—Petitioner sought to register cross-version under S. 22-A Cr.P.C., alleging bias and selective investigation by Police—Held, statement of petitioner was recorded and acknowledged, but no further action was taken—Since trial concluded with acquittal of accused, fresh investigation not justified—Petitioner may pursue a private complaint under the law—Court declined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. (c) Administration of justice: **----Police investigation—Allegation of bias—Held, where competent court has tried the matter and rendered judgment based on evidence, investigation proceedings lose relevance—Any further investigation or direction under constitutional jurisdiction would be parallel to the concluded trial—Doctrine of finality applies—No merit found in plea to reopen investigation on speculative or belated assertions. ----Disposition: Writ petition dismissed—Petitioner’s grievance pertains to Police inaction and alleged biased investigation; however, a full trial has been concluded and petitioner acquitted—Direction for fresh investigation found unwarranted—Petitioner advised to pursue private complaint, if so advised. "Respondent no. 2 and 4 be directed to act according law on the light of cross version of the petitioner and also direct the respondent no.1 to 4 do needfull act to search the real culprit of murder"

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 4, 9, 10-A, 23, 24 & 199 Land acquisition—Challenge to notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Maintainability—Fundamental rights—Petitioner, a legal heir in possession of residential land, assailed the notification dated 30.03.2021 issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition Collector for acquisition of land in Village Sihala, ICT for DHA Expressway—Petitioner alleged that the acquisition was not for public purpose, lacked legal basis, and was in violation of constitutional rights under Arts. 4, 9, 10-A, 23 & 24—Held, DHA’s application for acquisition was not submitted by its Executive Board as required under S.6(2)(j) of the DHA Act, 2013—Legal Advisor lacked lawful authority to initiate such proceedings—Violation of due process rendered the entire proceedings void ab initio—Petition allowed and impugned notification declared unlawful. Cited Case: Zahid Iqbal v. Hafiz Muhammad Adnan 2016 SCMR 430 (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ----S. 4, S. 3(c); Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, R. 3 Jurisdiction to issue notification—Competence of officer—Collector of District defined—Held, under S.3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act read with R.3 of the Land Acquisition Rules, only a duly appointed Collector by the Board of Revenue or Commissioner is authorized to issue notification under S.4—Notification dated 15.08.2018 empowered Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), ICT as Land Acquisition Collector—Thus, issuance of impugned notification by Respondent No.5 was legally competent. (c) Defence Housing Authority Act, 2013 (Act XII of 2013): ----Ss. 3(4), 6(2)(j), 13, 21 Procedure for land acquisition—Non-compliance with statutory mandate—Held, under S.6(2)(j) of the DHA Act, only the Executive Board may apply for acquisition of land—No authority exists for delegation to Legal Advisor—Acquisition request initiated by DHA’s Legal Advisor without Executive Board approval was ultra vires—Such procedural illegality invalidates the subsequent land acquisition process—Where law prescribes a mode, it must be strictly followed—Court cannot read into statute what is not there. (d) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 24(2); Public purpose—Meaning and scope Test for determining public purpose in compulsory land acquisition—Held, “public purpose” includes housing, road construction, and welfare schemes benefiting a segment of society—Construction of expressway qualified as public purpose—However, Court observed that the land acquisition process was vitiated due to procedural defects, including lack of proper authorization by DHA—Public purpose alone cannot cure defects in legal process. Cited Case: Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa 2021 SCMR 201 (e) CDA Ordinance, 1960 & Zoning Regulations, 1992: **----S. 11, S. 12; Development control and master planning—Overlap with Land Acquisition Act—Held, CDA Ordinance and Land Acquisition Act operate concurrently in ICT—DHA must adhere to CDA’s Master Plan when acquiring or developing land—Court noted that approval of CDA is required where changes to roads or access are proposed—Absence of prior NOC from CDA does not per se invalidate acquisition, but underscores need for coordination between regulatory regimes. Cited Case: Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Province of Punjab ----Disposition: Writ petition allowed—Impugned notification dated 30.03.2021 issued under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act quashed for being ultra vires and initiated without lawful authority—DHA directed that if land acquisition is still desired, fresh proceedings may be initiated through proper legal channel under DHA Act. "Resident of village Sihala impugns modification U/s 4 by land Acquisition collector for acquisition of land for DHA."

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 203— Superintendence and control of subordinate courts—Scope of administrative powers of Chief Justice of High Court—Petitions filed by the State challenging the order of the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court refusing to transfer Anti-Terrorism Court cases—Held, that the Chief Justice of a High Court, under Art. 203, is entrusted with constitutional authority to supervise all subordinate courts, including Anti-Terrorism Courts—In doing so, the Chief Justice is empowered, and indeed obligated, to act as guardian of judicial independence and insulate subordinate courts from undue executive influence—Any action taken within such constitutional mandate, unless shown to be patently arbitrary or unreasonable, cannot be interfered with by the Supreme Court— Cited Case: • Mehram Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445 **(b) Judicial Administration— ----Transfer of cases— Scope and discretion—Findings of Administrative and Chief Justices—Reference against Presiding Judge of Anti-Terrorism Court was considered and dismissed by the Administrative Judge—Subsequent transfer application based solely on the filing of that reference, lacking any convincing material, was rightly rejected by the Chief Justice of the High Court—Held, where a reference has been duly considered and dismissed, the mere existence of that reference cannot justify transfer of cases—Judicial officers cannot be penalized without adequate cause or proof. (c) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 203— Judicial independence—Protection of Presiding Judges—Held, that the Chief Justice, as the patris familias of the provincial judiciary, must ensure protection of Presiding Judges from external pressures—The High Court's administrative discretion in declining unwarranted transfers reinforces constitutional values of independence and fairness in judicial proceedings. **(d) Judicial Propriety— ----Adverse and favorable remarks— Judicial commentary on professional conduct—Findings recorded in paras. 8 and 9 of the impugned orders commented on conduct of both judicial officers and State functionaries—Held, such remarks, though serious in tone, are not to be treated as conclusive, binding, or determinative in any subsequent forum—Future scrutiny or evaluation must be carried out independently and strictly in accordance with law—Commendation does not shield judicial officers from scrutiny; criticism does not prejudice executive functionaries. **(e) Constitutional Law— ----Separation of powers—Scope of judicial review over administrative acts of Chief Justice—Held, administrative decisions of a Chief Justice regarding internal judicial affairs are not ordinarily subject to interference unless shown to be arbitrary, capricious, or in violation of constitutional or legal mandates—No such infirmity was found in the present matter. Disposition: Petitions disposed of—Supreme Court held that the Chief Justice of Lahore High Court acted within his constitutional mandate under Art. 203—Findings in paras. 8 and 9 of the impugned orders clarified as non-binding and non-prejudicial in future proceedings—Transfer requests by the State found meritless and correctly denied—Administrative action not interfered with.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 3, 23, 24, 35, 37(d), 38 & 203-D Right of inheritance—Denial on basis of custom—Customs “Chaddar” and “Parchi”—Un-Islamic practices—Maintainability of Shariat Petition—Jurisdiction of Federal Shariat Court—Enforcement of Quranic injunctions—Role of State institutions—Petitioner challenged the denial of women’s inheritance rights under a local custom named “Chaddar” or “Parchi”, allegedly practiced in Bannu District, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa—Such custom enabled male family members to deprive women of their rightful inheritance or to force them into accepting lesser property under pressure—The Federal Shariat Court held that even if the exact nomenclature of the custom was denied by government respondents, the practice itself of depriving women of their Islamic inheritance rights was sufficient for judicial scrutiny—State and its functionaries were bound under the Constitution to eradicate social evils and ensure justice in accordance with Quran and Sunnah—Federal Shariat Court declared that any custom, usage or practice, irrespective of its name, which wholly or partly deprives women of their Quranic right to inheritance, is un-Islamic, illegal and void—Court partially allowed the petition and held that denial of women’s inheritance rights under any pretext contravenes the Holy Quran, Sunnah, and constitutional principles under Art. 203-D. Petition partially allowed. (b) Islamic Law: ----Quran: Surah Al-Nisa (Verses 7, 11, 12, 14), Surah Al-Fajr (Verses 19-20), Surah An-Nisa (Verse 10) Women’s right to inheritance—Divine obligation—Usurpation through coercion or emotional pressure—Unlawfulness of denying legal share—The judgment extensively referred to Quranic verses establishing inheritance rights of women, and condemned practices that deprive them of their shares as acts tantamount to consuming fire (Surah An-Nisa:10)—Prophetic traditions were also cited to reinforce that any person who deprives an heir of inheritance shall be deprived of Paradise—Court emphasized that Islam categorically forbids customary practices such as Haq Bakhshwana and emotional coercion that force women to relinquish their rightful share—Denial of inheritance by way of custom or coercion violates clear Quranic commands and prophetic guidance, hence declared un-Islamic. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860): ----S. 498-A Criminalization of denying women’s inheritance rights—Scope and application—Recommendation to initiate penal action—Court highlighted Section 498-A PPC which prescribes imprisonment (5 to 10 years) and/or fine (up to one million rupees) for any person who deprives a woman of her inheritance through deceitful or illegal means—Federal Shariat Court directed that in serious and grave cases of such deprivation, concerned provincial departments must initiate criminal proceedings under S. 498-A—This direction was issued to give practical enforcement to women’s inheritance rights and prevent recurrence of such unlawful practices. (d) Statutory Developments & Institutional Oversight: ----Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2019; Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Acts of 2020 & 2021; Sindh Commission on the Status of Women Act, 2015 Provincial measures—Performance of Ombudspersons—Need for legislative and institutional strengthening—Court noted that while KP, Punjab, and Islamabad have enacted legislation to enforce women's property rights and established Ombudsperson offices, Sindh lacked a corresponding legal framework—The Sindh Commission on the Status of Women was acknowledged, but its limited enforcement powers were noted as a serious shortcoming—Court urged proactive institutional vigilance, classification of methods of deprivation, and broader awareness of inheritance rights—Suggested better coordination between departments and statistical tracking of rights violations under different customs to enhance protection. (e) Practice and Custom: ----Customs depriving women of inheritance—Legality and enforceability—"Haq Bakhshwana", "Chaddar", "Parchi"—Cultural vs. Islamic law conflict*—Court held that customs practiced under any title—“Chaddar”, “Parchi”, “Haq Bakhshwana”, etc.—which result in women relinquishing their inheritance rights, are in direct conflict with Islamic law—Such customs, regardless of regional variation, were declared un-Islamic, unlawful, and void ab initio—The underlying act, not its name, determines its illegality—All government departments were directed to treat such cases seriously and pursue remedial and punitive actions accordingly. ----Cited Cases: • Ghulam Ali v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi, PLD 1990 SC 1 • Satto v. Mst. Sughran & others, 1969 SCMR 296 • Fazaldad v. Mst. Noor Nishan & others, 1969 SCMR 607 • Muhammad Iqbal & others v. Durab Khan, 1976 SCMR 149 • Fatima Bibi v. Nur Muhammad Shah, PLD 1951 Lahore 147

Summary: Acquittal granted---(a) Criminal Law: ----Ss. 302, 396/149, 324/149, Cr.P.C. Ss. 342, 544-A & 382-B; Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, S. 17(4) Dacoity with murder—Benefit of doubt—Conviction and sentence—Ocular account—Identification of unknown co-accused—Absence of source disclosure—Unexplained identification of co-accused persons by name prior to arrest raised doubt—No identification parade held—Prosecution witness failed to prove how names of unknown persons were ascertained, rendering their nomination hearsay and inadmissible—FIR was registered with full attributions prior to arrest, yet no evidence explained such detailed knowledge—Failure of Investigating Officer to collect any corroborative evidence regarding the reconnaissance further cast doubt on prosecution’s version—Convictions set aside. Cited Case: Ata Muhammad v. The State 1995 SCMR 599 (b) Criminal Trial: ----Principle—Burden of proof—Prosecution must stand on its own legs—Prosecution failed to prove safe custody of recovered property and weapons—Weapons and empties remained unaccounted for from date of recovery to receipt by ballistic expert—No marking of weapons for identification—Identity of sender and custodian of case property remained unknown—Recovery memos signed by witnesses whose simultaneous presence at the place of arrest and post-mortem site was highly improbable and unexplained—Doubtful recovery and unsafe identification rendered corroborative evidence unreliable. Held: Benefit of doubt arising from custody chain lapses and unexplained simultaneous presence of witnesses warranted acquittal. (c) Criminal Procedure: ----Investigation—Police encounter—Failure to prepare sketch of encounter site—No independent witness—Presence of witnesses at two places three kilometers apart simultaneously—Manipulations and fabrications in police evidence—Investigating Officer failed to prove essential steps required under Police Rules 25.13 and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997—Prosecution’s version of arrest after hot pursuit contradicted by defence evidence of voluntary surrender—Police manipulation cannot replace independent corroborative proof. (d) Evidence: ----Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Arts. 70, 71, 140—Oath and credibility of witness—Testimony of prosecution witnesses found manipulated and contradictory—Witnesses signed recovery memos and inquest documents at the same time and different places—Failure to prove presence through independent or documentary evidence—Statements lacking corroboration and internal consistency—Witness who claims oath-bound testimony must depose the “whole truth,” not a manipulated version—Testimony not appealing to prudent mind cannot be relied upon. (e) Criminal Jurisprudence: ----Principle of benefit of doubt—Where evidence suffers from legal infirmities, contradictions, unexplained doubts, and manipulation, the only possible conclusion is acquittal—Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof—Court observed serious procedural and evidentiary lapses in the prosecution’s case—Trial Court judgment based on misreading of evidence set aside—All accused acquitted on benefit of doubt—Murder Reference answered in negative. ----Disposition: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside; all appellants acquitted on benefit of doubt; murder reference answered in negative.