| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2018 SLG 784 2018 SLD 784 2018 CLC 641 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 7699 of 2013, decision Date : 15-12-2017, hearing Date : 22-11-2017.
IBAD UR REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE
Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner. Muhammad Hameed Khan Rai, Assistant Advocate-General Punjab for
Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Rana Muzaffar Hussain for
Respondents Nos.3 to 8.
W.P. No. 7699 of 2013, decision Date : 15-12-2017, hearing Date : 22-11-2017.
IBAD UR REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE
Malik Noor Muhammad Awan for Petitioner. Muhammad Hameed Khan Rai, Assistant Advocate-General Punjab for
Respondents Nos.1 and 2. Rana Muzaffar Hussain for
Respondents Nos.3 to 8.
SHAHZADI UMERZADI TIWANA
VS
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
(a) Jurisdiction --- ----Consent of the parties could not confer jurisdiction (on any forum which otherwise did not have jurisdiction). Shahul Hamid v. Tahir Ali 1980 SCMR 469; Sultan Ali v. Khushi Muhammad PLD 1983 SC 243 and Administrator, Thal Development through EACO Bhakkar and others v. Ali Muhammad 2012 SCMR 730 ref. (b) Administration of justice--- ----What was not permitted to be done directly could not be achieved through circumvention of law by indirect means. Haji Muhammad Boota and others v. Member (Revenue), Board of Revenue, Punjab and others PLD 2003 SC 979 ref. (c) Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Competency---Past and closed transaction---Acquisition of private water canal by the Provincial Government---Compensatory award---Decree was passed in favour of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner by the High Court, but on account of amendments in the relevant Law, the Federal Court (former apex Court in Pakistan) proceeded to set-aside the said decree and held the predecessor-in-interest not entitled to any compensation---Relief which had been prayed for by the petitioner in the present constitutional petition, was in fact a closed and past transaction and the entitlement, which was being claimed by the petitioner, had already been refused to her forefathers on the same issue---Present constitutional petition was, thus, not competent and the same was dismissed. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, JUSTICE---.--- With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the hearing of this petition is being treated as pacca one. 2. The petitioner is representative of fourth generation of Tiwana Family. Between 1860 and 1871, great grandfather of petitioner Malik Sahib Khan Tiwana had constructed some inundation canals subject matter of the dispute, known as Malik Sahibkhanwala, also known as great Kalra canal, Piranwala canal, Chaharmiwala canal and Tootanwala canal in the District of Shahpur. With the exception of Tootanwala canal, the other three canals were mentioned in Schedule-II of The Punjab Minor Canals Act (Act III of 1905). By means of notification dated 19.04.1952 issued under Section 48 of…
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