Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS Respondent: Mst. BAKHAT BIBI
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Aslam Riaz Hussain, M. S. H. Qureshi Title: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Mst. BAKHAT BIBI Case No.: Civil Miscellaneous Petition No. 77 of 1980 Civil Appeal No..45 of 1978 Date of Judgment:1982-02-02 Reported As: 1982 SCMR 1174 Result: order granted
Judgment ORDER ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J-This is an application by the respondent in the main appeal for the issuance of a direction to the appellant Government to stop raising construction on the suit land. The learned counsel submitted that the Irrigation Department took illegal possession of her land measuring 42 kanals and 3 marlas in Mauzia, Ahmadpur Mohna, Bahawalpur, belonging to her predecessor-in-interest, without taking recourse to the acquisition pro--ceedings. Their predecessor-in-interest, Mst. Bakht Bibi filed a suit for the recovery of the possession of the suit- land but the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 29-6-1966. She then filed a regular first appeal before the High Court, which by its judgment dated 15-4-1978, reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent (applicant). The Provincial Government then filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 45/78) in this Court. The execution of the decree was stayed by this Court by an order dated 30-7-108 which was confirmed on 3-10-1978. Consequently, the land in question remained in possession of the appellant --Government. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the appellant-Government has now handed over the land in question to WAPDA for construction of a colony. We called the representative of the WAPDA who submitted that they were merely contractors for the Irrigation Depart--ment and did not know whether the land in question had been legally acquired. Mr. Bajwa, appearing for the appellate Government could not assist us properly and put forward the excuse that he was unable to get all necessary instructions from a responsible officer of the relevant authority, though he was earlier directed to get proper instructions. 2. In the circumstances, we are left with no option but to vacate the stay order granted in appellant's favour and confirmed on 3-10-1978. The stay order is consequently vacated.