Summary: Background:The Karachi Development Authority (KDA) had allotted two plots, designated for kiosks, to Syed Kabir Bokhari in 1976 after he submitted the highest bid. These plots, located in Scheme No.5, Kehkashan, Clifton, Karachi, were initially set for a 99-year lease upon full payment. Bokhari fulfilled the payment obligations, but later, it was discovered that the allotment conflicted with the master plan, which had not earmarked these plots for any construction, rendering the allotment illegal. The City District Government Karachi (CDGK), KDA's successor, issued cancellation notices in 2005, citing Bokhari's failure to construct within the stipulated time and the illegal conversion of amenity land without following proper procedures.High Court Ruling:The Sindh High Court, in response to Bokhari's challenge to the cancellation, directed the appellants to execute the lease deed in his favor, essentially upholding the allotment.Supreme Court Analysis:The Supreme Court recognized several key facts:The allotment's illegality due to its conflict with the master plan.Bokhari's inactivity and failure to utilize the plots for the intended purpose for nearly 29 years.The government's responsibility to act justly and compensate for losses due to its or its officials' illegal actions.However, the Court also noted that the illegality of the allotment does not entitle Bokhari to profit from the situation.Decision:The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. It directed the Government of Sindh/CDGK to refund Bokhari the full occupancy value he paid, along with an 18% annual markup from the date of payment until the refund is processed. This decision reflects the principle of equity and the fundamental rule that citizens must be compensated for losses incurred due to government errors, but without allowing them to benefit unduly from such errors.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.120-B,201,409,420,465,466,467,468,471 PPC 5(2)PC ActProsecution failed to prove the case,benefit of doubt,son not liable for offence committed by his father (Acquitted)

Summary: S.379,34 PPCProsecution failed to prove the case, benefit of doubt (Acquitted)

Summary: S.324,23,109,337-A(v)PPCConditional bail recalled due to failure of Arsh(Petition dismissed)

Summary: S.324,109,337-A(v) PPCCriminal Courts not vested with power to alter, modify, reopen or review a case after final decision(Petition dismissed)

Summary: S.4 Partition Act:No Limitation runs against Judgment/order which is void ab-initio