| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2281 2021 SLD 2281 2021 PLD 211 |
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 48219 of 2019, heard on 23rd November,2020, Date of hearing: 23rd November, 2020.
JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Barrister Ahmad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Barrister Scheherezade Shaharyar and Shahjahan Khan for Petitioners.Barrister Umair Khan Niazi, Additional Advocate General for
Respondents.Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali, Senior Legal Advisor for th
Writ Petition No. 48219 of 2019, heard on 23rd November,2020, Date of hearing: 23rd November, 2020.
JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE
Barrister Ahmad Pervaiz, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Barrister Scheherezade Shaharyar and Shahjahan Khan for Petitioners.Barrister Umair Khan Niazi, Additional Advocate General for
Respondents.Sahibzada Muzaffar Ali, Senior Legal Advisor for th
MUHAMMAD KHALID JAVED AND OTHERSVSLAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY AND OTHERS
Law: Lahore Development Authority Act, (XXX of 1975)
Section: 39,40
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 23,24,10A,199
(a) Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975)--- ----Ss. 39 40---Ejectment of unauthorized occupants---Removal of building, etc. erected or used in contravention of the Act---Right to fair trial---Laches---Scope s assailed action of Development Authority (Authority) whereby boundary wall of their house was demolished and a road was constructed on their property---Authority did not dispute ownership of the petitioners, however, claimed that they had taken action under S.39(3) of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975 (the Act)---Validity---Section 39 of the Act, as a whole, empowered the Director General LDA to eject unauthorized occupants but the powers were dependent upon mandatory condition of issuance of prior notice and providing an opportunity of hearing to the aggrieved party---Section 39(3) of the Act was confined to taking action and not demolishing the property---Authority could not be termed as unauthorized occupants of the property---Authority had not raised the issue of construction of boundary wall during the last more than thirty four years and were now estopped from doing so being hit by laches and acquiescence---Authority’s action hampered the petitioner’s fundamental right of due process of law which was protected under Art. 10-A of the Constitution in which right of fair trial and due process was granted to all citizens---Constitutional petition was allowed and the action of Authority was declared to have been done in disregard and without proper procedure provided under the law. Khalid Saeed v. Shamim Rizvan and others 2003 SCMR 1505; Ch. Mehraj Din v. Lahore Development Authority 1981 SCMR 862; Shifa Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive v. Lahore Development Authority, through Director-General, LDA and 3 others 2004 MLD 1377; Haji Muhammad Ashraf v. The District Magistrate Quetta and 3 others 2000 SCMR 238; Muhammad Maqsood Sabir Ansari v. District Returing Officer, Kasur and others PLD 2009 SC 28; Fida Hussain and others v. Mst. Saiqa and others 2011 SCMR 1990 and Javed Ahmad Riaz v. Government of Punjab and others 2018 PLC (C.S.) Note 25 ref. Lord Denning in Southam v. Smout [1964] 1 QB 308 at 320 and Muhammad Aslam v.…
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