Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 2841 2024 SLD 2841 2024 CLC 64
Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench
Date of hearing: 16th May, 2023.
Before Muhammad Naeem Anwar and Shahid Khan, JJ
Khawaja Salah-ud-Din, A.A.G. for Petitioners. Muhammad Waqas and Haya Khan for
Respondent No.1.

The DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BAJAUR and others----Petitioners

VERSUS

Mst. MAHI SULTAN and another----Respondents

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

(a) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings (Management, Control and Allotment) Act (II of 2018)--- ----Ss.7(5) & 11---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Allotment of Government accommodation---Removal of encroachments and eviction of unauthorized occupant---Scope---Allotted quarter was cancelled from the name of the respondent---Being aggrieved, she filed a declaratory suit with permanent and mandatory injunction against the Deputy Commissioner---Interim injunction was issued in favour of the respondent---Validity---Record was suggestive of the fact that suit was filed on 24.12.2022 whereas the allotment in favour of respondent/plaintiff was cancelled by the Deputy Commissioner vide order dated 13.12.2022 and as such, the date on which the suit was filed, the respondent/plaintiff was not the legal allottee of the disputed quarter---Impugned order dated 13.01.2023 was passed on the application of the respondent/plaintiff, whereby she had sought restoration of possession of the quarter in question on the plea that there was an interim injunction order in her favour---For grant of an injunction either perpetual or temporary and for that matter mandatory, the co-existence of three essential ingredients was sine qua non---Respondent/ plaintiff must place before the Court a prima facie case pertaining to her legal rights, character/status---When the allotment had been cancelled earlier to the institution of the suit then the respondent/ plaintiff even on the date of filing of the suit had no prima facie case in her favour rather it required recording of evidence, if at all, to be resolved, in favour of the respondent/plaintiff and in absence of one of the ingredient i.e., prima facie case, the other ingredients i.e., balance of convenience and irreparable loss lost its significance---Petition was allowed by setting aside the impugned order, in circumstance. Mian Hakim Ullah and 2 others v. Additional District Judge/ Tribunal, Nowshera and 4 others 1993 SCMR 907 and Puri Terminal Ltd. v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communications and Railways, Islamabad and 2 others 2004 SCMR 1092 rel. (b) Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Provincial Buildings…
🔒
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