Case Details

Citation(s)
2023 SLG 1803 2023 MLD 1523 2023 SLD 1803
Lahore High Court
W.P. No. 45771 of 2022, decided on 14th November, 2022.Date of hearing: 14th November, 2022.
Before Shujaat Ali Khan, J
Rana Tahir Mahmood for Petitioner. Ahmad Pervez assisted by Ms. Scheherezade Shaharyar for
Respondents.

MUSTAFA MASOOD---Petitioner

VERSUS

DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, LAHORE and others---Respondents

Law: Defence Housing Authority Lahore Ordinance, 1999 

Section: 7

Defence Housing Authority Lahore Ordinance (LI of 1999)--- ----S. 7 Preamble---Plot---Caution or injunctive order, removal of---Responsibility of the Authorities/statutory body---Functions of the Defence Housing Authority ( the Authority)---Scope---Late father of the petitioner purchased a plot from a person who happened to be a -debtor in a decree; and after the death of the father, names of the petitioner and other legal heirs were although incorporated in the record of the Authority, however, the Authority declined issuance of No Demand Certificate (NDC) to said legal heirs in wake of a caution regarding plot-in-question having been marked in the record---Caution was marked by the Authority against the subject-plot pursuant to order passed by the Executing Court due to the fact that the decree-holder had mentioned the said plot in the list of inventory of the -debtor for satisfaction of decree---Authority had not removed the caution despite the fact that Local Commission appointed by the Executing Court for auction denied auction on the basis that the subject-plot no more belonged to the -debtor (from whom father of the petitioner purchased the same); and an employee of the Authority had stated before the Executing Court that the subject-plot was transferred in the name of the father of petitioner---Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court against the letter issued by the Authority declining issuance of No Demand Certificate on the plea of the caution still having been marked in the record of the Authority---Held, that there was no justification for the Authority to continue with the caution in wake of facts of present case as well as for the reason that the decree had already been transferred to the Executing Court of other province---It was of common knowledge practice that once a caution or injunctive order was incorporated in the record of a statutory body, like the Authority, the same was not removed despite knowing the fact that such caution or injunctive order had already lost its efficacy---In the present case, when the transfer order of decree out of province was brought to notice of Authority, resulting in redundancy of…
🔒
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