Alla Nawaz

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001 Allah Nawaz Khan S/o Haq Nawaz Khan, R/o H. No. 2088, Gali No. 5, Behind the Old Bakkramandi, Bagh Road, Multan city. Petitioners VERSUS 1. Pakistan Railways, through General Manager, Railway Head Quarters, Lahore. 2. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan. 3. Divisional Engineer, Property and Land, Pakistan Railways, D.S. Office, Multan. 4. Assistant Engineer, Pakistan Railways, Multan. 5. Inspector of Works, Pakistan Railways, Multan. Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with all other enabling provisions of law in this behalf.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations. 2. That the plot No. 15 was auctioned on 30.10.99 in response to the advertisement in the Daily Khabrain, Multan dated 25.10.99. The petitioner stood successful bidder in the open auction and obtained the said plot measuring 10 acres at the rate of Rs.

2,850/- per acre. The petitioner deposited 50% of the bid money (Rs. 14,125/-) on the said date. Copy of the Press clipping and receipt are attached as Annexes “A & B”. 3. That the auction proceedings were approved by the competent authority of the respondent department vide letter dated 13.3.2000, and the petitioner was asked to attend the office of the respondent No. 5 to sign the agreement vide letter dated 3.4.2000. Copy of approval and letter are attached as Annex “C & D”. 4. That the agreement was got executed in compliance of letter dated 3.4.2000 and the petitioner deposited the remaining bid money Rs. 14,125/- as directed by the respondent No. 5 resultantly the possession of the land (3/21-22, 4/16-17-24-25, 23/9-10, 25/4-5 Mauza Sunnaki, District Muzaffargarh) was handed over to the petitioner on 6.5.2000. Copy of direction and receipt are Annex “E & F”. 5. That the petitioner, after making heavy investment, cultivated the land and presently crop of Wheat on 7 acres and Barseen on 3 acres is standing at the site of the said plot No. 15, but the respondent department is not going to allow the petitioner to bear the ripen crop inspite of his repeated requests. The act and conduct of the respondents is without jurisdiction, illegal, void, ab-initio, against the terms and conditions of the auction and ineffective qua the rights of the petitioner. The omissions and commissions on the part of the respondents can safely be termed as colourful exercise of their jurisdiction and on the other hand, it is personal as well as national loss, if the crop is not borne within a couple of days. 6. That the petitioner has been left with no alternate, efficacious, adequate and speedy remedy available except to invoke the writ jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for the redressal of his grievance.

Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, it is respectfully prayed that an appropriate writ may graciously be issued restraining the respondents from depriving the petitioner from bearing the ripen crop pending on 7 acres of land of plot No. 15. Any other writ, order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: ___________

Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No. ______________/2001 Allah Nawaz Khan

Vs.

Pakistan Railways, etc.

Application under Order 26, Rule 9 C.P.C. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the petitioner has filed the titled writ petition in this Hon’ble Court, with all the sanguine hope of its success. 2. That the averments of the main petition may be read as part and parcel of the application. 3. That the petitioner has a prima facie case and balance of convenience also tilts in his favours. 4. That the relief sought for, if not granted, the petitioner would suffer an irreparable loss. In view of the above humble submissions, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents may please be directed not to restrain the petitioner/applicant from harvesting the ripen crops standing on 10 acres of land, on plot No. 8, till the final disposal of the titled writ petition. Meanwhile, it is also prayed that a Commission may please be appointed to observe the position of the standing crop to save it from being perished. Humble Applicant, Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No. ______________/2001 Allah Nawaz Khan

Vs.

Pakistan Railways, etc.

AFFIDAVIT of: Allah Nawaz Khan S/o Haq Nawaz Khan, R/o H. No. 2088, Gali No. 5, Behind the Old Bakkramandi, Bagh Road, Multan city.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned petition are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of May 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No. ______________/2001 Allah Nawaz Khan

Vs.

Pakistan Railways, etc.

APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPIES OF ANNEXURES. =========================================

Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copies of Annexures “A to N” are not available. However, uncertified/photo state copies of the same have been annexed with the petition, which are true copies of original documents. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copies of documents. APPLICANT Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

In re: C.M. No. _____________/2001 In W.P. No. ______________/2001 Allah Nawaz Khan

Vs.

Pakistan Railways, etc.

DISPENSATION APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: Allah Nawaz Khan S/o Haq Nawaz Khan, R/o H. No. 2088, Gali No. 5, Behind the Old Bakkramandi, Bagh Road, Multan city.

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT

Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of May 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No. ______________/2001 Allah Nawaz Khan

Vs.

Pakistan Railways, etc.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

3

Writ Petition.

4

Affidavit

5

Copy of Press Clipping.

A

6

Copy of Receipt.

B

7

Copy of Approval & Letter.

C&D

8

Copy of Direction & Receipt.

E&F

9

Application U/o 26, R-9 C.P.C.

10

Affidavit.

11

Dispensation Application.

12

Affidavit.

13

Vakalatnama PETITIONER

Dated: ____________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No._____________/2001 Allah Nawaz Khan S/o Haq Nawaz Khan, R/o H. No. 2088, Gali No. 5, Behind the Old Bakkramandi, Bagh Road, Multan city. Petitioners VERSUS 1. Pakistan Railways, through General Manager, Railway Head Quarters, Lahore. 2. Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Multan. 3. Divisional Engineer, Property and Land, Pakistan Railways, D.S. Office, Multan. 4. Assistant Engineer, Pakistan Railways, Multan. 5. Inspector of Works, Pakistan Railways, Multan. Respondents

Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with all other enabling provisions of law in this behalf.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1.

That the names and addresses of the parties have correctly been given for the purpose of their summons and citations.

2.

That through advertisement dated 23.3.95 published in the daily “Nawa-e-Waqt” the plots of Railway land situated at Chenab East and West Bank were proposed to be auctioned for cultivation purposes through an open auction for 3 years in

favour of the successful bidders after depositing 50% amount of bid money at site. It was also required from the participants of the auction proceedings to deposit Rs. 2,000/- before the proceedings of auction with the clarification that the amount deposited be returned to unsuccessful bidders and the amount deposited by the successful bidders will be adjusted in 50% amount of bid money. Copy of the advertisement is attached as Annex “A”. 3.

That the petitioner remained successful bidder in the auction proceeding held on 30.3.1995 in respect of plot No. 8 consisting of 10 acres at the rate of Rs. 660/- per acre and has deposited 50% of bid money in favour of the respondents. Copy of the auction proceeding along-with sketch of the plot auctioned in favour of the petitioner and copy of receipt for depositing the amount are attached as Annexes “B, C & D” respectively.

4.

That the respondent department, on one pretext or the other, for the reasons best known to them, remained reluctant for a period of 5 years to accord the approval of the auction and handing over the possession of the plot to the petitioner, inspite of being successful bidder. Resultantly, the petitioner was constrained to submit an application for the return of 50% of bid amount deposited on first instance in the year 1996. It is pertinent to mention here that this exercise was repeated in the year 1997, 1998 by the petitioner as evident from the applications

submitted

to

the

respondent.

Inspite

of

recommendation of Assistant Engineer, Multan, to the effect that he was pleased to report that since the Railway land was occupied by the Forest Department and was not available and has not been occupied by the successful bidder, it was therefore, recommended that 50% money deposited my please be refunded vide letter No. 13-G, dated

.6.1997, even then

amount was not refunded to the petitioner. However, it was decided by the department somewhere in the month of March,

1999 to refund the 50% money deposited by the petitioner, but this too was not progressed. Copies of the application and letter of A.E. are attached as Annex “E, F, G & H”. 5.

That the respondent department opted a device in the year 2000 and asked the petitioner to negotiate on the subject instead of claiming the return of 50% bid money to have the same plot, by raising the rate from Rs. 660/- per acre to Rs. 1,000/- per acre. It is pertinent to mention here that the land is situated in the bed of the river Chenab and is always subjected to climatic position and having no value at all, but to assure the already deposited amount, the petitioner agreed to the new rate offered by the department during the negotiations i.e. Rs. 1,000/- per acre. Resultantly, after having executed an affidavit in favour of the department in respect of the new rate on 8.9.1999, the respondents were kind enough to accord the approval of the auction on 10.4.2000 at the rate of Rs. 1,000/per acre, whereupon the petitioner was directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 6,700/- as 50% of bid money on 15.5.2000. Copies of affidavit, approval, letter for depositing Rs. 6,700/- and deposit receipt are attached as Annexes “J, K, L & M” respectively.

6.

That inspite of depositing total bid money i.e. Rs. 10,000/and giving in writing the actual possession of the land was not handed over to the petitioner for cultivation purpose. However, the petitioner was allowed to sow the wheat crop. The copy of the same is attached as Annex “N”. And the

7.

That the petitioner after making investment cultivated the wheat crop. It was the misfortune of the petitioner when the crop was ripe to be harvested the respondent department came forward with a colourful attitude and deprived of the petitioner from harvesting the standing crops in the field without any cogent reason. The petitioner tried his level’s best to settle the issue with the respondent department, but all in vain, as the respondents have opted an illegible, irrational and

illegal ways to deprive the petitioner from the benefits of auctioned land. 9.

That the wheat crop is standing, which is going to be perished if not borne, within a couple of days. It will not only be a loss of the petitioner alone, but shall be a national loss. The omissions and commissions committed by the respondents can safely be termed as colourful exercise of their jurisdiction.

10.

That the petitioner has been left with no alternate, efficacious, adequate and speedy remedy available except to invoke the extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of this Hon’ble Court for his grievance. Keeping in view the above-mentioned facts, it is respectfully prayed that an appropriate writ may graciously be issued restraining the respondents from depriving the petitioner from bearing the ripen crop pending on 10 acres of land of plot No. 8. Any other writ, order, direction or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended in the favour of petitioners to meet the ends of justice. Humble Petitioner, Dated: ___________

Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

CERTIFICATE: Certified as per instructions of the client, that this is the first petition on the subject matter. No such petition has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

W.P. No. ______________/2001 Allah Nawaz Khan

Vs.

Pakistan Railways, etc.

INDEX S. No. NAME OF DOCUMENTS

ANNEXES PAGES

1

Urgent Form

2

Stamp Paper worth Rs. 500/-

3

Writ Petition.

4

Affidavit

5

Copy of the advertisement.

6

Copy of auction proceeding & sketch.

7

Copy of receipt.

8

Copies of applications & letter.

E, F, G & H

9

J, K, L & M

10

Copies of affidavit, approval, depositing letter and receipt. Copy of letter.

11

Application U/o 26, R-9 C.P.C.

12

Affidavit.

13

Dispensation Application.

14

Affidavit.

15

Vakalatnama

A B&C D

N

PETITIONER Dated: ____________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ________/2001 In C.R. No. 744-D/1999 Sikandar Hayat

Vs.

Baqir

Application U/o 42, R-19 and Sec-151 C.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the applicant is the only petitioner in the above titled Civil Revision. 2. That the titled Revision Petition was filed by the applicant and the same was fixed for hearing on 25.1.2000 in first instance. The case was adjourned to 15.2.2000 for the engagement of the counsel and with the enlistment of the other similar civil revision Petition No. 745-D/1999 between the same parties. 3. That the case was fixed on 15.2.2000. The father of the applicant was present. No power of attorney was placed by any counsel, but it was stated by the applicant’s father that he has engaged a counsel from Khanewal, who could not appear due to his indisposition and the case was adjourned to 13.3.2000. 4. That, however, before the fixed date i.e. 13.3.2000, a C.M. No. 324-C/2000 was moved by Dur Muhammad (Zar Muhammad as stated in the order), on which an order dated 10.3.2000 was passed, by which the following cases: -

(i)

C.R. No. 746-D/1999

(ii)

C.R. No. 747-D/1999

(iii)

C.R. No. 748-D/1999

(iv)

C.R. No. 749-D/1999

were consolidated with C.R. No. 744-D/99 and C.R. No. 745D/99 for regular hearing before the same judge for 4.4.2000. On 4.4.2000, the revision petitioner Sikandar Hayat, in Revision Petition No. 744-D/1999, 745-D/1999 and petitioner Waqar Hussnain in C.R. No. 746-D/1999 to C.R. No. 749D/1999 were present. Abid Hussain Advocate for the respondents in all the revision petitions, was also present. In this order, it was also directed that W.P. No. 2236/90 shall also be fixed along-with all these 6 cases on 18.5.2000. However, this case was fixed for hearing on 4.7.2000, instead of 15.5.2000. No one was present and the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. Copy of proceeding is Annex “A”. 5. That the applicant seeks restoration of the above titled case and the order dated 4.7.2000 is impugned inter alia on the following mentioned: GROUNDS a)

That the order is against the natural justice and law of equity.

b)

That the case was not fixed as per directions of the learned judge.

c)

That there was no information about the fixation of a case to the applicant.

d)

That there is no fault on the part of the applicant in respect of absence.

e)

That the absence of the applicant is not willful, rather condonable in the peculiar circumstances.

f)

That the valuable rights of the applicant are attached with the case, if the case is not restored, an irreparable loss shall be caused to the applicant. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may please be accepted and the main Revision Petition may also be restored to its original number. Any other direction, order or relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may please be extended in the interest of justice. Humble Applicant,

Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ________/2001 In C.R. No. 745-D/1999 Sikandar Hayat

Vs.

Baqir

Application U/o 42, R-19 and Sec-151 C.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the applicant is the only petitioner in the above titled Civil Revision. 2. That the titled Revision Petition was filed by the applicant and the same was fixed for hearing on 25.1.2000 in first instance. The case was adjourned to 15.2.2000 and was to be listed with the other similar civil revision Petition No. 744-D/1999 between the same parties. 3. That the case was fixed on 15.2.2000 along-with C.R. No. 744D/1999 and was adjourned for 13.3.2000. This case was fixed on 4.4.2000 instead of 13.3.2000 and the next date for hearing was 18.5.2000. Again the case was fixed on 4.7.2000 instead of 18.5.2000 and on 4.7.2000, the case was dismissed for nonprosecution. Copy of proceeding is Annex “A”. 4.

That the applicant seeks restoration of the above titled case and the order dated 4.7.2000 is impugned inter alia on the following mentioned: GROUNDS

i) That the order is against the natural justice and law of equity. ii)

That the case was not fixed as per directions of the learned judge.

iii)

That there was no information about the fixation of a case to the applicant.

iv)

That there is no fault on the part of the applicant in respect of absence.

v)

That the absence of the applicant is not willful, rather condonable in the peculiar circumstances.

vi)

That the valuable rights of the applicant are attached with the case, if the case is not restored, an irreparable loss shall be caused to the applicant. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may please be accepted and the main Revision Petition may also be restored to its original number. Any other direction, order or relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may please be extended in the interest of justice. Humble Applicant,

Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176

IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ________/2001 In C.R. No. 749-D/1999 Waqar Hassnain

Vs.

Nijabat

Application U/o 42, R-19 and Sec-151 C.P.C.

Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the applicant is the only petitioner in the above titled Civil Revision. 2. That the titled Revision Petition was filed by the applicant and the same was fixed for hearing on 10.2.2000 in first instance. The case was adjourned to 22.2.2000 after issuing of pre-admission notice. On 22.2.2000, none was present from the other side and the case was adjourned for 29.2.2000. 3. That the case was fixed on 4.4.2000, instead of 29.2.2000, and was ordered to be heard along-with C.R. No. 744-D/1999 (written in order C.R. No. 544-D/1999) and was fixed for 18.5.2000. Again the case was fixed on 4.7.2000 instead of 18.5.2000. On 4.7.2000, no one was present from the petitioner’s side and respondents were represented by Abid Hussain Bhutta, Advocate, and the case was dismissed for non-prosecution. Copy of proceeding is Annex “A”. 4.

That the applicant seeks restoration of the above titled case and the order dated 4.7.2000 is impugned inter alia on the following mentioned: -

GROUNDS i)

That the order is against the natural justice and law of equity.

ii)

That the case was not fixed as per directions of the learned judge.

iii)

That there was no information about the fixation of a case to the applicant.

iv)

That there is no fault on the part of the applicant in respect of absence.

v)

That the absence of the applicant is not willful, rather condonable in the peculiar circumstances.

vi)

That the valuable rights of the applicant are attached with the case, if the case is not restored, an irreparable loss shall be caused to the applicant. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that the application may please be accepted and the main Revision Petition may also be restored to its original number. Any other direction, order or relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper, may please be extended in the interest of justice. Humble Applicant,

Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959 C.C. No. 20176 IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ________/2001 In C.R. No. 747-D/1999 Waqar Hassnain

Vs.

Shahadat

APPLICATION U/S-5, LIMITATION ACT. AFFIDAVIT of: Rizwan Ahmad Naseem S/o Gul Muhammad, caste Sheikh Magoo, R/o Chak No. 8/9-R, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal (through Special Power of Attorney).

I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-mentioned application are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief and nothing has been kept concealed thereto. DEPONENT Verification: Verified on oath at Multan, this _____ day of May 2001 that the contents of this affidavit are true & correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. DEPONENT IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.

C.M. No. ________/2001 In C.R. No. 749-D/1999 Waqar Hassnain

Vs.

Nijabat

APPLICATION U/S-5, LIMITATION ACT. Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the applicant was appearing in the above-titled case through Special Power of Attorney. 2. That the applicant remained present in this Hon’ble Court when the case was listed as fixed by the court. At last instance, the case was not fixed as per given date and no intimation/notice was given to the applicant for the appearance in the above titled case. 3. That there was no fault of the applicant in respect of absence and neither the absence was willful. 4. That as soon as the matter of the dismissal of the case was known to the applicant, the application is filed within the stipulated period. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that if any delay is caused in filing the application of restoration, it may kindly be condoned. Any other relief, which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may please be extended towards the applicant to meet the ends of justice. Humble Applicant, Dated: __________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959

Sheikh Muhammad Faheem, Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176