Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 5 & 7---Ownership and possession---Maintainability of complaint during pendency of civil proceedings---Complainant (female owner) sought possession of commercial property (Shop No.2, Block No.6, Civic Centre, Melody Market, Islamabad) gifted to her by her parents through registered Gift Deed dated 16-01-2018---Respondents (tenants’ sons) claimed ownership through an alleged oral agreement to sell made by their deceased father in 1982---Held, complaint maintainable under S.7(1) of the Act notwithstanding pendency of civil suit for declaration and recovery of rent---Provision expressly empowers Ombudsperson to entertain complaint even when court proceedings are pending concerning ownership or possession of property claimed by a woman. (b) Ownership and title---Registered gift deed---Evidentiary value---Gift deed duly executed and registered with Sub-Registrar, Islamabad, constituted valid and conclusive title in favor of Complainant---Respondents’ reliance on electricity bill and tax notice held immaterial as these do not confer proprietary rights---Absence of proof of payment, consideration, or written sale instrument rendered alleged oral sale unenforceable in law---Complainant thus declared sole lawful owner of the suit shop. (c) Leasehold rights---Chain of title established---Report from Capital Development Authority confirmed that leasehold rights of the commercial property were originally granted to Colonel Saeed Tariq, later transferred to Mrs. Parveen Tariq, and thereafter sold to Dr. Abdul Wahid and Dr. Haseena Parveen (Complainant’s parents), who gifted it to the Complainant---Respondents had no legal title or tenancy subsisting upon termination of the earlier arrangement. (d) Possession---Right to eviction of unlawful occupants---Scope of Section 5 of the Act---Where a woman proves ownership and shows that others unlawfully retain her property, Ombudsperson empowered to order immediate restoration of possession---Respondents directed to vacate shop and hand over vacant possession within one month, failing which coercive measures for eviction to follow. (e) Disposition— Complaint allowed---Respondents held to be illegal occupants of Shop No.2, Ground Floor, Block No.6, Civic Centre, Melody Market, G-6/4, Islamabad---Directed to vacate and hand over possession to Complainant within one month---Compliance fixed for 14-02-2025.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----S. 8---Determination of rent for period of dispossession---Scope of remand by President of Pakistan---Complainant (widow) sought recovery of rent for period during which she and her children were deprived of their share in residential house at E-7, Islamabad---Case remanded by Hon’ble President to Ombudsperson to determine market rent and duration of dispossession—Evidence, including plaint in civil proceedings (filed 22-02-2016), established that dispossession commenced in September 2015 and possession was restored on 06-07-2021—Held, under S.8 of the Act, the Ombudsperson is empowered to direct payment of market rental value for entire duration of unlawful deprivation—Respondents found jointly liable for rent. (b) Civil litigation history---Effect of collusion---Earlier suit filed by Respondent No.1 for declaration and possession dismissed by civil court on 29-02-2015 for failure to prove alleged exchange of property—Record showed Respondent No.2 admitted claim of Respondent No.1 in that suit, evidencing collusion to dispossess Complainant—Respondent No.2, therefore, estopped from denying involvement or liability for rent. (c) Calculation of rent---Principles---Market rental value assessed at Rs.360,000 per annum in 2021 with 10% annual reduction applied retrospectively to October 2015—Husband of Complainant held 1/3rd share in property; Complainant entitled to 1/8th of entire estate—Total rent corresponding to husband’s share calculated at approx. Rs.5.5 million; Complainant’s personal share assessed at Rs.700,000---Both Respondents held jointly and severally liable to pay said amount within one month. (d) Administrative law---Remand compliance---Where superior authority remands matter for specific determination, forum must confine itself to scope of remand—Directions of Hon’ble President of Pakistan (order dated 10-12-2024) duly complied with by recalculating rent and duration based on evidence of dispossession. (e) Disposition— Complaint partly allowed---Dispossession determined to have commenced in September 2015 and ended on 06-07-2021---Respondents directed to pay Rs.700,000 to Complainant jointly and severally within one month---In case of default, Complainant entitled to approach forum for enforcement under S.8 of the Act—File consigned.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4, 5 & 7---Ownership and possession---Jurisdiction despite pendency of civil suit---Complainant (widow) sought recovery of possession of residential house exclusively owned by her deceased husband and later transferred to her, her two minor children, and father-in-law as per decree of legal heirship---Respondents (brothers-in-law) unlawfully occupied the house and resisted eviction on ground of a pending civil suit challenging the underlying gift deed---Held, the Complainant had produced valid transfer letter confirming title; Respondents were strangers to ownership and had no locus standi—Civil proceedings initiated *after* filing of complaint did not oust Ombudsperson’s jurisdiction under S.7—Once complaint was filed, no court could take cognizance of same matter in view of S.11 of the Act; principle akin to S.10, C.P.C. applied by analogy—Reliance placed on earlier FOSPAH order dated 25-03-2024 (C. No. FOH-HQR/0000132/2023). (b) Possession---Illegal occupation by male relatives during iddat period---Effect---Respondents’ interference and continued possession of house despite status quo orders amounted to willful defiance of forum’s direction—SHO concerned held liable for non-compliance—IG Islamabad Police directed to initiate proceedings against SHO PS Lohi Bher for disobedience. (c) Civil proceedings---Gift deed pending challenge---Effect---Pending civil suit for cancellation of gift deed does not affect validity of existing title and transfer until set aside by competent court—Refusal of temporary injunction by both civil and appellate courts reinforced Complainant’s lawful ownership and possession rights—Occupation by Respondents declared illegal. (d) Relief---Direction for restoration of possession and internal auction---Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, directed under S.5(1) of the Act to place Complainant in full possession of suit house; SHO PS Lohi Bher to assist compliance—1/6th indivisible share of father-in-law (Respondent No.3) to be offered for internal auction at market value in light of Complainant’s willingness to purchase. (e) Jurisdictional limitation of forum---Complaint regarding vehicle transfer by Respondent No.1 held non-maintainable as the Act extends protection exclusively to women deprived of their property; male heirs must approach competent civil forum for redress. (f) Disposition— Complaint allowed---Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, directed to restore complete possession of House No.8, Street 25-B, Block-H, Soan Garden Housing Society, Islamabad, to Complainant Hira Ishtiaq and submit compliance report on 23-04-2024—SHO PS Lohi Bher to assist and IG Islamabad to report action for defiance—1/6th share of Respondent No.3 to be evaluated for internal auction on same date.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Inheritance---Recurring cause of action---Civil suit dismissal on technical grounds---Effect---Complainants (three sisters) sought division and possession of inherited land situated in Pind Baigwal, Islamabad, claiming deprivation by their brother (Respondent No.1)---Respondent resisted on ground that their prior suit for partition had been dismissed by the Civil Court and affirmed by the Islamabad High Court—Held, dismissal under O.XVII, R.3, C.P.C. was technical for non-joinder of necessary parties and not on merits—No adjudication having been made on substantive rights, the cause of action survived—In matters of inheritance, each denial of a woman’s share constitutes a *recurring cause of action*—Reliance placed on *Khan Muhammad v. Khatoon Bibi* (2017 SCMR 1476). (b) Maintainability---Jurisdiction of Ombudsperson---Where denial of inherited share continues and has not been conclusively adjudicated upon by a competent court, the complaint under the Act remains maintainable—Pending or previously dismissed civil proceedings on procedural grounds do not preclude cognizance under the Act. (c) Relief---Partition and possession---Mesne profits---Scope---Ombudsperson empowered under S.5 to direct division of property and restoration of possession to rightful female heirs; Complainants further entitled to mesne profits for deprivation of use, to be assessed upon compliance. (d) Disposition— Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad, directed to separate and deliver possession of Complainants’ *shari* share in land measuring 06 kanals 6 marlas (Khasra Nos. 927–930, Khewat No.224, Khatooni Nos.464–467, Revenue Estate Pind Baigwal, Islamabad)---Compliance report ordered for 08-04-2024; issue of mesne profits to be determined thereafter.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Gift by husband to wife---Possession and ownership---Scope---Complainant (wife) claimed ownership and possession of residential house gifted to her in two stages (2005 and 2014) by her husband (Respondent)---Both gifts duly entered in CDA record and corroborated by property and utility bills---Respondent contested on ground of pending civil suit for revocation of gift and alleged non-delivery of possession---Held, ownership stood transferred to Complainant; CDA record confirmed title—Mere pendency of civil litigation did not bar jurisdiction of Ombudsperson under S.7, which permits cognizance even when matter is sub judice—Possession presumed delivered as parties were co-residents and husband–wife relationship falls within exceptions to physical delivery rule under Muhammadan Law. (b) Muhammadan Law---Delivery of possession in gifts between spouses---Principle---Under Rules 152(3) & 153 of Mulla’s Principles of Muhammadan Law, delivery of actual possession is not essential where donor and donee reside together or where husband gifts property to wife—This principle affirmed by Supreme Court in *Machhia v. Panan* (1987 SCMR 2058)---Hence, gift complete and irrevocable. (c) Jurisdiction of Ombudsperson---Effect of pending civil suit---Section 7 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020, expressly allows proceedings to continue notwithstanding pendency before civil court—Revocation of gift remains for civil adjudication, but possession and enforcement of existing ownership fall within Ombudsperson’s competence. (d) Disposition— Complaint allowed---Respondent directed to vacate House No.335, Ravi Road, Sector G-8/2, Islamabad---Possession conferred upon Complainant as lawful owner---Deputy Commissioner directed under S.5(3) of the Act to ensure implementation and submit compliance report within seven days.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4 & 5---Inheritance---Fraudulent deprivation of daughter’s share---Jurisdiction and scope---Complainant, being sole daughter and legal heir of deceased allottee Zafar-ul-Haq, claimed ownership and possession of ½ share in Plot No.1727, Sector I-14/2, Islamabad---Record revealed that Respondents fraudulently procured transfer of entire property in their names through false declarations before CDA, concealing existence of surviving heirs including complainant---CDA inquiry confirmed misrepresentation and tampering of record by respondents and its own staff---Held, complainant entitled to ½ share of her father’s allotment---Fraudulent transactions being void ab initio confer no title on any transferee. (b) Fraud---Effect---Any transaction or order obtained through deceit and falsehood is nullity in law---Fraud vitiates the most solemn acts and no right can arise from it---Limitation does not run against a void transaction---Relied upon *Muhammad Afzal v. Shahid Iqbal* (2023 CLC 471) and *Saleem Ahmed Khan v. Mst. Zeenat* (2023 CLC 1217). (c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ----S. 41---Bona fide purchaser---Scope---Protection under S.41 not available where vendor has no title---Subsequent transfers made on basis of fraudulent mutation stand automatically dismantled—Purchaser cannot claim benefit of good-faith acquisition against lawful heir’s ownership—Reference made to *Amina Bi v. Bivi* (1993 MLD 1207). (d) Conduct of Capital Development Authority (CDA)---Failure of statutory duty---Negligence and collusion of CDA staff in enabling fraudulent transfer and providing false information before forum condemned---Authority directed to conduct disciplinary and criminal proceedings against responsible officials and respondents---Reaffirmed principle from *Capital Development Authority v. Muhammad Hanif* (2003 CLC 1684) that public bodies must act fairly, honestly, and transparently. (e) Disposition— Complaint allowed---CDA directed to (i) transfer ½ share of late Zafar-ul-Haq’s allotment in name of complainant Beenish Zafar; (ii) deliver actual possession of her share if divisible; (iii) initiate disciplinary proceedings against inquiry clerk Wajahat Ali Bhatti and officials responsible for false reporting and delay; and (iv) institute criminal proceedings against respondents for fraud and forgery---Chairman CDA ordered to submit compliance report within 15–30 days---Matter fixed for 01-03-2024.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 4, 5 & 6---Maintainability---Ownership and deprivation---Scope---Complainants (mother and daughter) filed complaint against their son/brother alleging deprivation of their share in family property situated in Gulberg Greens, Islamabad—Record revealed that the Complainants along with another sister had executed a registered Surrender Deed relinquishing “entire shares, right and ownership” in favour of Respondents Nos.1 & 2—Held, execution and registration of Surrender Deed lawfully extinguished Complainants’ ownership rights—Having voluntarily divested themselves of title, they could not claim to be deprived of ownership or possession within the meaning of S.4—Complaint not maintainable. (b) Jurisdiction---Limitation of Ombudsperson’s authority---Where complainant ceases to be owner of the property under a validly executed and registered document, the Ombudsperson cannot assume jurisdiction to revisit or cancel such transaction—Proper remedy lies before a Civil Court to challenge validity of the instrument. (c) Reference to Civil Court---Fraud or coercion alleged in execution of transfer document---Scope of S.6---Where allegation involves fraud, misrepresentation, or breach of family settlement requiring in-depth investigation or detailed evidence, Ombudsperson may formulate reference under S.6 to the Civil Court for adjudication. (d) Disposition— Complaint rejected as not maintainable; however, reference formulated and directed to be transmitted to the concerned Civil Court to determine whether Surrender Deed dated 11-10-2021 was procured by fraudulent means, in terms of S.6 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 5 & 8---Recovery of rent---Scope and procedure---Complainant (widow) sought recovery of rental income from joint family property of her deceased husband’s share for period during which she was deprived of its use---Earlier, forum had already restored title and possession of her share under S.5, which order was upheld by the President of Pakistan---Subsequently, application filed under S.8 for payment of rent equivalent to market value from 2008 to 2021—Held, S.8 empowers the Ombudsperson to direct payment of rent at prevailing market rate for duration of unlawful deprivation—However, as factual controversy existed regarding whether property had been rented out and its actual rental value, evidence from both parties was necessary before adjudication. (b) Jurisdiction---Powers of Ombudsperson to award compensation---The Ombudsperson under S.8 has ancillary jurisdiction to order monetary compensation where a woman has been deprived of the use or enjoyment of her property, including rental value, even after possession has been restored—Such power flows directly from the remedial and restorative intent of the statute. (c) Factual dispute---Burden of proof---Where the existence of rental income or rate of rent is contested, both parties must produce supporting evidence (e.g., market valuations, tenancy records, or comparable rental rates) before determination—Summary relief cannot be granted in absence of evidentiary basis. (d) Disposition— Matter adjourned for recording of evidence from both sides on the question of rental value and entitlement under S.8 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----Ss. 1(2), 4(1), 5 & 7(1)---Maintainability of complaint---Conditions precedent---Scope---For the Federal Ombudsperson to assume jurisdiction under the Act, two conditions must be met: (i) the property in dispute is situated within the territorial limits of the Islamabad Capital Territory (ICT); and (ii) the complainant is deprived of ownership or possession of her property—In the present case, both properties situated in Bahria Town and Gulberg Greens, Islamabad, fall within ICT—Respondents admitted complainants’ status as lawful sisters and their entitlement to inheritance—Held, complainants were deprived of ownership and possession of their shares; complaint maintainable. (b) Constitutional challenge to Act, 2020 ----W.P. No. 529/2021 (Islamabad High Court)---Effect of suspension order---Although the Act was earlier declared *ultra vires* by the learned Single Bench, operation of that judgment was suspended by a Division Bench in ICA No. 85/2023 dated 16-03-2023—Therefore, the Ombudsperson lawfully retained jurisdiction to proceed with complaints under the Act pending final adjudication of the constitutional challenge. (c) Inheritance—Partition and liabilities of deceased ----Undivided property---Objection that estate was not partitioned or liabilities not settled—Held, immaterial—Where ownership and shares under Islamic law are ascertainable, non-partition does not preclude relief—Unpaid debts/liabilities may be adjusted among legal heirs proportionally without defeating the women’s claim—Reliance placed on *Muhammad Yousaf v. Ghayyur Hussain Shah* (1993 SCMR 1185). (d) Parallel civil proceedings ----Pending litigation---Effect---Under S.7 of the Act, the Federal Ombudsperson may exercise jurisdiction even if the subject matter is *sub judice* before a civil court—Pendency of civil suit does not bar cognizance unless the matter is conclusively adjudicated—No evidence produced showing civil case near final disposal. (e) Disposition— Objections to maintainability dismissed—Complaint held maintainable under Ss. 4 and 7 of the Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020—Matter fixed for written reply of remaining respondent.

Summary: (a) Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act, 2020 ----S. 4---Maintainability of complaint---Locus standi---Scope---Only a woman who has been deprived of the ownership or possession of her property can invoke jurisdiction of the Federal Ombudsperson under S.4 of the Act—Complainant, having already transferred her ownership rights in the suit property to her daughters through mutation No. 33725, was neither owner nor in possession of the property at the time of filing the complaint—Held, complaint not maintainable. (b) Amendment of complaint---Non-entitlement of transferor---Complainant’s application to amend complaint by impleading her daughters and sister as parties—Held, misconceived—Since the complainant was no longer an owner in the revenue record, she had no standing to seek amendment—However, rightful owners (daughters) were at liberty to file an independent complaint and appoint the complainant as attorney if so advised. (c) Jurisdiction of Ombudsperson---Requirement of ownership or possession---Under the Act, 2020, jurisdiction is contingent upon the complainant’s deprivation of property rights she legally owns or possesses—Absence of ownership extinguishes the right to relief under the statute. (d) Disposition— Amendment application dismissed—Complaint rejected as not maintainable due to lack of ownership and locus standi.