Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Jurisdiction of Civil Court vs. Tribunal under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977: ----Ss. 11, 12 & 13---Tribunal's exclusive jurisdiction over disputes concerning public property---Scope of civil court intervention. The respondent filed a declaratory suit challenging the government's ownership of land recorded as public property and seeking injunction, possession, and damages. The Assistant Commissioner issued a notice for removal of encroachment under S. 3 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977. The court reaffirmed that: The Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction under S. 12 to determine whether a property is public or not. Civil Courts are barred from entertaining suits challenging ownership of land classified as public property under S. 11. The Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to grant affirmative declarations regarding ownership or to rectify revenue records—such claims must be filed before the civil court. ----Cited Cases: • Muhammad Farid v. Municipal Committee (PLD 1999 SC 41) • Mian Hakim Ullah v. Additional District Judge (1993 SCMR 907) (b) Declaratory Relief and Revenue Record Rectification: ----Competency of Tribunal to amend revenue entries---Exclusive jurisdiction of Civil Court under CPC and Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Tribunal decreed in favor of the plaintiff, granting rectification of revenue records and compensation for damages. The High Court ruled that: The Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to issue such declarations. Only the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain claims challenging revenue entries or seeking ownership declarations. The plaintiff must file a separate civil suit under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 before the competent civil court. ----Cited Case: • Municipal Committee Mingora v. Nasar Khan (2016 MLD 1610) (c) Compensation for Damages due to Demolition: ----Recovery of damages for unauthorized demolition---Tribunal's lack of jurisdiction. The respondent sought Rs. 40,00,000 as compensation for demolished construction and loss of household goods. The Tribunal granted Rs. 20,00,000, which was later challenged. The court ruled: The Tribunal lacked authority to award damages. Claims for monetary compensation due to wrongful demolition must be filed before a civil court as part of a separate damages suit. The plaintiff is allowed to seek compensation separately through proper legal proceedings. (d) Effect of Tribunal's Judgment on Future Civil Suits: ----Tribunal’s findings not binding on Civil Court---Fresh evidence required in new proceedings. The court clarified that setting aside the Tribunal’s decree does not prejudice the plaintiff’s right to approach the civil court for ownership declaration and damages. Any new civil suit will be adjudicated independently, without reliance on the Tribunal’s findings. (e) Judicial Approach to Encroachment Disputes: ----Role of courts in balancing public property claims and private ownership disputes. The High Court emphasized that: Public property disputes must first be addressed through the Tribunal, but civil courts retain jurisdiction over ownership claims and compensation matters. Encroachment notices cannot be arbitrarily used to dispossess claimants without due process. Citizens have the right to contest government ownership claims before competent forums, provided they follow the prescribed legal procedures. ----Disposition: Petition allowed. Tribunal’s decree set aside. Plaintiff directed to file a separate suit before civil court for ownership declaration, damages, and possession.

Summary: Petitioner is an Accounts Officer of AGPR. After 3x rounds of denovo inquiry, inquiry committee has recommended removal. Impugns show cause for removal from service.

Summary: Cartridge cases in a case will be submitted to Punjab Forensic Science Agency, Lahore for comparison with weapon and if any accused in the case is absconder, then said cartridge cases after exhibition during trial of any other accused in criminal case will be again deposited in the office of PFSA, Lahore till their comparison with weapon recovered from any absconding accused.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Section 29(2) of Limitation Act excludes the application of section 5 for condonation of delay in filing appeal against acquittal under section 48 of CNSA, 1997. --- ''The contention of learned DPG that limitation does not run against a void order is repelled because it is now settled that law of limitation being lex fori creates a right in favour of the parties, therefore, cannot be ignored by treating it mere a technicality.'' --- it was claimed that the period of limitation for filing of appeal against acquittal by the State is six months as per Article 157 of the Limitation Act. The court examined that this appeal against acquittal is not being regulated under section 417 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1897, rather was filed under section 48 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 which is a special law and is to be read for the period of limitation provided therein --- The court dismisses the application for condonation of delay.Section 5 of the Limitation Act is specifically mentioned as inapplicable to proceedings under special laws. --- The law of limitation requires that a person must approach the Court and take recourse to legal remedies with due diligence, without dilatoriness and negligence and within the time provided by law. --- The court affirms the principle that once an acquittal is recorded, the accused enjoys a presumption of innocence.Any challenge to the acquittal must be made within the specified time frame.

Summary: Suit for declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 and the suit under section 13 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa removal of encroachment of public property Act 1977, distinction.No doubt, the plaintiff/respondent No.1 approached to the civil Court through his suit wherein besides declaration, perpetual injunction, he has also prayed for cancellation of notice issued to him by petitioner No.1 for removal of alleged encroachments, as such, there were two distinct reliefs: one was to be dealt with u/s 11, 12 & 13 of the Act of 1977 for which the civil Court could not grant a decree for cancelation of notice under the provisions of the Act of 1977, as such, the petitioners to that extent has rightly submitted the application for return of plaint to the respondent No.1, however, his suit for rest of the reliefs such as grant of declaration that the disputed khasra number was the sole ownership of the father of the plaintiff/ respondent No.1 and he, being his legal heir, is exclusive owner with the prayer that entries in the revenue papers are incorrect against his rights requires rectification and perpetual injunction restraining the petitioners from altering the nature of the suit property and lastly for compensation of the damages caused to his construction, were not the domain of the Tribunal in view of principle of Farid and others? case (supra). This Court was right in acceptance of Writ Petition No.2- M/2016 but the directions could only be given for return of plaint to the extent of notice challenged through suit by the respondent No.1 before the civil Court whereas for remaining reliefs, the civil Court had got ultimate jurisdiction u/s 9 of the C.P.C qua the relief u/s 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, thus, it appears that the Single Bench of this Court in said writ petition was not properly assisted by the then petitioners for return of plaint in respect of all the reliefs in view of the dicta laid down by the apex Court in the cases of supra cases of ?Muhammad Farid and others and Mian Hakim Ullah and others.

Summary: Background: Mahnoor Shabbir filed a suit for maintenance against her paternal uncle after the death of her grandfather, who was initially the defendant. The claim was based on Section 337 of Muhammadan Law, asserting that as a poor distant relative, she was entitled to maintenance from her uncle who inherited property from her grandfather. The trial court ruled in her favor, but the Additional District Judge, Lahore, reversed this decision on appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appeal by the respondents was time-barred. 2- Whether the petitioner was entitled to maintenance from her paternal uncle under Section 373 of Muhammadan Law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Timeliness of the Appeal: The petitioner claimed the appeal was time-barred, but the appellate judgment did not address this. No specific finding was provided in the impugned judgment regarding the timeliness of the appeal. Entitlement to Maintenance: --Section 373 of Muhammadan Law: The appellate court found that Section 373, which mandates that poor relatives within prohibited degrees are entitled to maintenance from those who would inherit from them, did not apply. It noted that the paternal uncle would not inherit from the petitioner or her father, as her father was survived by his parents, wife, and children. --Factual Findings: The appellate court also found that the petitioner was not established as a poor relative in need of maintenance. Evidence showed that the petitioner’s mother was financially stable and providing for her education. --Jurisdiction and Legal Basis: The court emphasized that Muhammadan Law, as presented in D.F. Mulla's text, is not statutory and its principles are not binding unless specifically legislated or adopted by courts in precedents. The court dismissed the petition, upholding the appellate court's decision that the petitioner was not entitled to maintenance from her paternal uncle. The appellate court’s findings were based on the lack of statutory support for the claim and the factual determination that the petitioner was not a poor distant relative entitled to maintenance under the discussed principles of Islamic jurisprudence. ----Citations/Precedents: Messrs Najaat Welfare Foundation v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2021 FSC 1): The Federal Shariat Court discussed the non-binding nature of D.F. Mulla's Muhammadan Law as it is a reference text, not statutory law. Various Superior Court Judgments: The court referenced multiple cases where Pakistani courts have departed from the principles stated in Muhammadan Law as per Mulla’s text.