| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1995 SLG 1172 1995 SLD 1172 1995 CLC 1536 |
Peshawar High Court
Civil Revision No. 89 of 1991, decision dated: 13-03-1995
JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
Civil Revision No. 89 of 1991, decision dated: 13-03-1995
JAWAID NAWAZ KHAN GANDAPUR, J
Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others
VS
GENERAL MANAGER, TARBELA DAM PROJECT and 2 others
Law:
Section:
(a) Fundamental Rules -------F.Rs. 45-A & 45-B---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Plaintiffs were in occupation of Authority's property on agreed rent ---Ehancement of rent by Authority---Effect---Enhancement in rent by amendment in F.R. 45-A by which property in possession/occupation of plaintiffs was not covered--Trial Court striking down enhancement of rent---Appellate Court dismissed plaintiff's suit by accepting enhancement of rent by the Authority ---Validity--Fresh assessment of rent was allegedly made in accordance with F.R. 45-A envisaging enhancement---Property in occupation of plaintiff, however, was not covered by F.R. 4$-A but same was covered by F.R. 45-B-- Fundamental Rules 45-A & 45-B were governed by separate and distinct legal incidents and different considerations in matter of assessment and determination of rent---Mode of assessment of rent in respect of property falling within the scope and ambit of F.R. 45-A could not be borrowed and applied to property covered by F.R. 45-B---Functionary who claimed to enhance such rent property effecting amendment, in F.R. 45-A (there being no amendment in F.R. 45-B) was not authorized to effect such amendment--Assessment and enhancement of rent having not been made by Competent Authority and having not been applied with uniformity to property in occupation of specified category of persons would have no application to case of plaintiff, as the property occupied by him was not covered by the notification of enhancement of rent. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ---- Notification/statutory rule imposing burden should be strictly construed and doubt, if any, should be resolved in favour of subject/citizen rather than the State. (c) Fundamental Rules--- ---- F.R. 45-B---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115---Property of defendant (Authority) in occupation of plaintiffs on basis of rent deed---Order of enhancement of rent by an unauthorized functionary was not warranted by law---Property in question, was situated in far-flung rural area and was not subject to any law relating to urban properties---Court taking judicial notice of the fact that at least rent chargeable on old rates must…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492