Case Details

Citation(s)
2017 SLG 2702 2017 SLD 2702 2017 PCRLJ 1187
Sindh High Court
C. P. No. D-1083 of 2016, decision & hearing Dated: 14-03-2017.
NADEEM AKHTAR, JUSTICE FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Muhammad Anwer Tariq, Sohail H. K. Rana for CBC along with Muhammad Sajjad Ahmed, MEO, Karachi Circle. Muhammad Javaid K.K., Assistant Attorney-General.

DR. MUHAMMAD SHARIF

VS

MILITARY ESTATES OFFICER AND ANOTHERS

Law: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)

Section: 22,22A

Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 22-A & 22---Justice of Peace---Powers of Justice of Peace in respect to documentation---Issuance of "Heirship Certificate" in respect of property---Scope---Office of Justice of Peace was created under S. 22 of the Cr.P.C. and Justice of Peace's powers in respect of documentation were mentioned in S. 22-A(5) of the Cr.P.C., and said law had not given powers to the Justice of Peace to issue an "heirship certificate"---Justice of Peace could issue residential certificate to a person residing in his local area or attest documents, but he had no power to issue an "heirship certificate". THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, JUSTICE:---.--- Through this petition, the petitioner has sought directions of this Court for respondents to mutate the leased property i.e. bungalow No. 52/B, Depot Lines Karachi in the names of legal heirs as per law. It is the contention of the petitioner that despite the written instructions/policy of the Ministry of Defence, the respondents are demanding Letters of Administration for mutation of the property described above. According to him, the respondent No. 1 is bound to transfer/mutate the property on Heirship Certificate as described in the policy. After service to the respondents, the respondent No. 1 appeared and submitted that the written instructions/policy dated 20-07-2009, relied upon by the petitioner, is merely an opinion expressed by the Law Officer of the Department as such the same has no binding effect. However, while disposing of this petition, the respondent No. 1 was directed to consider the application of the petitioner and decide the same within 15 days. After that, the petitioner filed a contempt application alleging therein that the order passed at the time of disposal of the petition was not complied with by the respondent No. 1. The alleged contemnor/MEO appeared and gave the undertaking to comply with the direction dated 20-12-2016 by deciding the application of the petitioner by 11-02-2017 strictly in accordance with law. On such undertaking, the previous contempt application was disposed of. The petitioner has now filed the instant contempt…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492