Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PESHAWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director-General and others VS Respondent: NOOR HABIB and others
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Fazal Ilahi Khan, Ajmal Mian Title:PESHAWAR DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director-General and others
vs NOOR HABIB and others Case No.: Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No,336 of 1995 Civil Revision No,16 of 1994 Date of Judgment:1995-11-14 Reported As: 1998 SCMR 2051 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' AJMAL MIAN, J.---This is a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment dated 15-6-1995 of the Peshawar High Court passed in Civil Revision No,16 of 1994 filed by the petitioners against the concurrent judgments/decrees of the two Courts below decreeing respondents Nos.1 to 8 suit for declaration cum permanent injunction and in the alternative for possession of the City wall described in the annexed plans as 'A' and 'B' measuring 180 sq.Feet, hereinafter referred to as the wall, dismissing the same by affirming the above concurrent judgments/decrees. 2. The brief facts are that respondents Nos.1 to 8/plaintiffs purchased the wall for a sum of Rs,43,567 on 20-7-1987 from the Provincial Government. When the above respondents submitted plan for the construction of building on the site of the wall, the same was refused by the petitioners on the ground that it was a historical building having an archaeological feature. This was resisted by above respondents. They inter alia filed a suit, which was decreed in spite of contest by the petitioners. It was found that factually the wall was constructed in the year 1935 and, therefore, it had no historical or archaeological importance. The appeal and the revision also failed. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal. 3. In support of the above petition Sardar Akhtar Ali, learned Advocate Supreme Court who has appeared for the petitioners, is unable to point out any legal infirmity in the finding recorded by the three Courts below as to warrant grant of leave. The fact that the above respondents had purchased the wall for the aforesaid sum stands proved. The objection, which was raised by the petitioners, was found to be not sustainable by the Courts below. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused.