Summary: When a legal heir is deprived of his/her right of inheritance & he/she remains alive for a considerable period & does not challenge his/her deprivation from the legacy of the predecessor, then at large stage when the legacy change many hand, the further legal heirs have no locus-standi to challenge the said inheritance mutation which remained unchallenged during the life time of their predecessor.

Summary: The questions before us were of two-folds; firstly; whether the layout plan/master plane could be converted from residential to commercial, secondly, whether the impugned Act is violative to the fundamental rights of petitioners or the residents of university town? Another question would be what are the criteria and considerations for declaring a statute ultra vires? And what are the defences generally judicially recognized in this regard? So far as first question is concerned, we have noted in paragraph Nos. 12, 14. 17 & 19 of this judgment that when the properties were sold with an intent to provide a specific atmosphere and environment which with the passage of time converted into petitioners right of easement in manner could be converted from the one already approved. Secondly, undoubtedly, the legislature has the power to make the law for subjects of the country, especially, the provincial assembly under Article 141 of Constitution, and the only restriction/limitation is that the law may not be inconsistent with the fundamental rights of the public, thus, while dealing with the master plan/layout plan, we observed that the impugned Act is against the fundamental rights as provided in the constitution. Hon ble the Lahore High Court in case reported as, P L D 2011 Lahore 120 held that a law established by federal or provincial legislature has to stand the test of constitutionality. While a law promulgated by delegated legislature, according to the legal principle, must also stand the additional test of not being uncertain, unreasonable, ultra vires to the parent statute or in conflict with any other law. Basic criteria for declaring a law ultra vires to the Constitution, which is the supreme law of a country. All other statutes derive power from the Constitution and are deemed subordinate to it. If any legislation over-stretches itself beyond the powers conferred upon it by the Constitution, or contravenes any constitutional provision, then such laws are considered unconstitutional or ultra vires to the Constitution. None has any right, human or fundamental, to violate the law with immunity and claim any right to use a building for a purpose other than authorized nor the any such right could be claimed or law could be made. If in the legislation itself or in the statute governing the field, ecological aspects have not been taken into consideration keeping in view the future need, the State and the Authority must take the blame therefor. Maxwell on interpretation of statute 12th edition by P. St. J. Langan has discussed that Statutes which encroach upon rights, whether as regards person or property, are subject to strict construction in the same way as penal Acts. It is a recognized rule that they should be interpreted, if possible, so as to respect such rights and if there is any ambiguity, the construction which is in favour of the freedom of the individual should be adopted . Once the draft town-planning scheme is sanctioned, the land becomes subject to the provisions of the Town Planning Act, and on the final town-planning scheme being sanctioned, by statutory operation the title of the various owners is readjusted and the lands needed for a public purpose vest in the local authority.Right of a person to construct residential houses in the residential area is a valuable right. The said right can only be regulated in terms of a regulatory statute but unless there exist a clear provision the same cannot be taken away. This Court observed that if the laws are not enforced and orders of the Courts to implement the laws are ignored, the result can only be total lawlessness. We have also noted that there must be some accountability not only of those violating the law but also of those errant officers who turn a blind eye to the misuse of residential premises for commercial purposes.

Summary: Maintainability of suit to challenge an action taken without issuing the prescribed show-cause notice. Rate of Federal Excise Duty applicable to insurance services under section 10 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the effect of Rule 40 of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005.

Summary: (a) Punjab Industrial Relations Act (XIX of 2010)-------S.33---Redressal of individual grievances---Limitation---Scope---Petitioner, after hisrelease from jail on acquittal, approached the department through an application forrestoration of his services, which were terminated on the basis of absence from duty---Petitioner, thereafter, served grievance notice to the department and later on filed grievancepetition under S.33 of the Punjab Industrial Relations Act, 2010---Labour Court allowed thepetition, however, Labour Appellate Tribunal declared the petition barred by limitation---Validity---Petitioner had to approach the Labour Court in case his application was notdecided by the department, but he, instead of pursuing his matter, opted to seek directionsfrom the High Court just to save his skin and to cover the bar of limitation---Petitioner fullyknew factum of the institution of grievance petition before the Labour Court within thestatutory period of limitation but he remained slept for years---Constitutional petition wasdismissed, in circumstances.Lahore Development Authority v. Mst. Sharifan Bibi and another PLD 2010 SC 705rel.(b) Equity-------Law helps the vigilant and not the indolent.Aftab Iqbal Khan Khichi and another v. Messrs United Distributors Pakistan Ltd.Karachi 1999 SCMR 1326 ref.

Summary: Gulshan Shah, was convicted and sentenced to death and life imprisonment for the murder of Safdar Shah and his brother Iqbal Shah. The incident occurred on 15.4.2003, and the petitioner, along with his brother Zia Shah and their father, was accused of the crime. The petitioner and Zia Shah, who remained a proclaimed offender, were alleged to have assaulted the deceased with a hatchet and club due to family disputes.The complainant, Ayyaz Hussain Shah, lodged the crime report, and after absconding, the petitioner was arrested on 24.1.2006 and later convicted under clause (b) of Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The High Court upheld the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.In the jail petition, the petitioner argued that the courts relied heavily on the testimonies of interested witnesses without sufficient corroboration. The petitioner claimed that the acquittal of Ashiq Shah, who had no role in the crime, undermined the prosecution's case and raised doubts about the conviction.However, the court found that the petitioner was directly involved in the murder of Iqbal Shah, as evidenced by medical evidence and the consistent testimonies of multiple witnesses. The court rejected the argument that Ashiq Shah's acquittal affected the petitioner's case and upheld the guilty verdict.While the court upheld the conviction, it ordered that the sentences for the petitioner's involvement in Iqbal Shah's murder should run concurrently, granting him the benefit of the time already served. The jail petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O.VI, R.17---Amendment in plaint---Principle---Plaintiff/respondent sought amendmentin plaint which was declined by Trial Court but Lower Appellate Court allowed the same---Validity---Only rider was that party could not be allowed to substitute a new cause of actionor introduce a cause of action distinct from the one which was basis of suit and such was notsituation of plaintiff/respondent--- Suit property belonged to forefathers of parties anddefendants/petitioners were sons of plaintiff/respondent who were so-called legal heirs oftheir grandfather---Plaintiff/respondent was not in possession therefore, he should haveprayed or relief in plaint---Such defect was pointed out in written statement thatplaintiff/respondent was out of possession, therefore, amendment in prayer clause was madeso as to insert relief of possession---Addition of relief of declaration and possession in suitdid not in any manner changed character of the suit nor introduced any new cause of action---High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Lower Appellate Court in exercise of itsrevisional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.Nazir Hussain Rizvi v. Zahoor Ahmed PLD 2005 SC 787 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending