Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a complaint under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, claiming ownership and possession of a plot since 1980 and alleging that he was forcibly dispossessed by the respondents in 2007. The Additional Sessions Judge directed the local police to investigate, resulting in a report confirming the petitioner’s prior possession and his dispossession in 2007. However, the trial court dismissed the complaint, leading to this writ petition challenging that dismissal under Article 199 of the Constitution. -----Issues: 1- Did the trial court err by dismissing the complaint based on a misinterpretation of the police report? -----2- Did the trial court follow the required procedure under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, and the Criminal Procedure Code? -----3- Should the trial court have first verified the sufficiency of the complaint's allegations before ordering an investigation? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court allowed the petition, holding that: The trial court misinterpreted the police report, failing to acknowledge confirmation of the petitioner’s possession and dispossession. The trial court did not properly assess the complaint's allegations to determine if the offense met the requirements under Section 3 of the Act before ordering an investigation. A proper judicial review of the complaint’s contents is necessary to establish whether an offense under the Act is evident without further evidence or extraneous considerations. The case was remanded to the trial court for reconsideration in light of these principles, directing adherence to the standards set by the Supreme Court in interpreting the Illegal Dispossession Act. -----Citations/Precedents: Waqar Ali vs. The State [PLD 2011 SC 181] Mst. Inayatan Khatoon vs. Muhammad Ramzan [2012 SCMR 229]

Summary: S.5 Exp Sub Act Trial by ordinary court (Remanded)

Summary: Competency of Police Policy Board & void order of departmental authority, maintainability of WP

Summary: Prohibition of Smoking and Protection of Non-Smokers Health Ordinance (LXXIV of2002)------Ss. 2(c)(g), 5 & 11---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.144(6)---Constitution ofPakistan, Art. 18---Sheesha smoking, serving of---Restraining order---Right of free trade---Petitioner was running a restaurant and his grievance was that authorities were interfering in hislawful business--- Validity---Offering of sheesha smoking in restaurant by petitioner wascontrary to the provisions of Prohibition of Smoking and Protection of Non-Smokers HealthOrdinance, 2002---Legal import of tobacco would bring no change nor could entitle petitionerfor its use in the referred place---Restraining order was issued by government of Balochistan inexercise of powers available under S.144(6), Cr.P.C., which had specifically empoweredprovincial government to make an order to such effect---Petitioner failed to point out anyillegality committed by provincial government in issuance of order in question---Petitioner failedto establish that any of his fundamental rights was denied by issuance of restraining order passedby authorities---Petitioner was citizen of Pakistan who had the right to enter in any profession oroccupation or to conduct any trade or business but provisions of the Art.18 of the Constitutionspecifically spelt the nature of profession, occupation, trade and business as lawful which wasmissing---High Court declined to interfere in the matter-- Constitutional petition was dismissedin circumstances

Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss. 264, 270, 278, 299 & 371---Letter of administration---Territorial jurisdiction---Principle---Appellant filed application for grant of letter of administration but Trial Court at place "Q"returned the application for lack of territorial jurisdiction---Validity---Application was filedbefore Trial Court with assertion that deceased had permanent place of abode at place "Q" butproperties owned by deceased situated in different parts of another province---District Judge atplace "Q" had jurisdiction to entertain application for the purpose and to grant letter ofadministration---Simultaneously District Judge, in whose territorial jurisdiction the propertiessituated also had the jurisdiction---Trial Court without going into relevant provisions of lawsimply returned the application, on the basis that Court had no jurisdiction in the matter---Suchaction of the Trial Court was an error---High Court advised the Trial Court that before makingdecision should always go through law applicable in the matter pending for decision---Forumand territorial jurisdiction for courts was determined under Ss.264 & 270 of Succession Act,1925---High Court did not put respondents on notice as they had not been served whenapplication was returned by Trial Court---High Court set aside the order passed by Trial Court atplace "Q" and remanded the case for decision afresh.Mst. Uzma Rehman v. Public at Large PLD 2011 Kar. 108; Tariq Shafi; in the matter of2013 MLD 129 and Vasdev v. General Public PLD 1979 Quetta 35 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.