| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1980 SLG 3064 = 1980 SLD 3064 = 1980 SCMR 368 |
Civil Petition No. 220-R of 1979, decided on 12th December, 1979: (On appeal from the judgment and order dated 19-9-1979 of the High Court of Baluchistan, Quetta, in Constitutional Petition No. 165 of 1977).
Presented By: Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J
Muhammad Bilal, Advocate Supreme Court and Yaqub Hussain Zaidi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Nemo for
Respondents.
MULLA ABDUL HAKEEM-Petitioner
VERSUS
COMMISSIONER KALAT AND OTHERS -Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 185(3)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185 (3)---Mere fact of subject-matter of order being made subject of a civil dispute, held, not by itself sufficient to hold order of restoration of property being unlawful, improper or unjust-No justification, held, made out for interference, in circumstances.--601 [Possession]. Date of hearing :12th December, 1979. JUDGMENT MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-Leave to appeal is sought from the order dated 19th September, 1979 of the High Court of Baluchistan ; whereby a writ petition arising out of a criminal case, was dismissed. The petitioner along with others was convicted on Ist August, 1977, for various offences including trespass on land and house in possession of Amir Bux respondent, after a trial under Criminal Law (Special Provisions) Ordinance, 1968. On an appeal the Commissioner set aside the conviction and remanded the case on 4th March, 1978. This time the accused were acquitted. But the said respondent challenged the order of acquittal and the case has again been remanded for retrial, by order dated 3rd September, 1979. The present petition arises out of an order for restoration of posses sion, passed after conviction. The respondent No. 4 had complained that the property which was the subject matter of offence of trespass continued to be in illegal possession of the convict. His application after due enquiry was allowed on 17th October, 1977 and order of restoration was passed. It appears that although the conviction was subsequently set aside but the order of restoration of possession was not disturbed. The petitioner, however, challenged the…