Mst. Naseem (i.c.a
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Mst. Naseem (i.c.a as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 2,501
- Pages: 14
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst. Naseem Akhtar wife of R.N. Rahat Nawaz, R/o 536/D Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan. ……Appellant/Petitioner
VERSUS 1. Multan Development Authority, through its Director General. 2. Director General, M.D.A. 3. Director, Estate & Land Management, M.D.A. 4. Rainbow International (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Managing Director opposite Hyundai Multan Motors, L.M.Q. Road, Multan. 5. Hakim Mehmood Ahmad Khan Advocate, Nazim Halqa No. 12, Multan. ……Respondents
APPEAL U/s 3 of Law Reforms (amendment) Act, 1972, against the judgment dated 11.06.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge-in-Chambers of this Hon’ble Court Bench at Multan, resulting the dismissal of writ petition of the appellants/petitioners.
CLAIM IN APPEAL: -
To set aside the impugned judgment and to accept the writ petition. Court fee: As required under the law, is affixed.
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 initially the writ petition was filed by the appellant alongwith two others (Rashida Ahmad Khan & Haq Nawaz), but, during the course of proceedings, the other two petitioners (Rashida Ahmad Khan & Haq Nawaz) preferred to withdraw their names as petitioners. 3. That the respondent No. 5 was allowed to be impleaded as party, but neither amended petition, nor written reply/parawise comments were filed on his behalf. However he is arrayed as respondent. 4. That the writ petition was filed on the following facts & grounds: FACTS i) That the petitioners are residents of Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, which was proposed, designed, established and controlled by respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. ii)
That the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, at the time of establishment and designing of the said colony provided all civic facilities to meet the requirement of future e.g. space for graveyard, dispensaries, schools, parks, streets, roads, etc. At the time of allotment, the price of these plots provided for civic facilities was charged in the shape of development charges. This
colony was established about 20/22 years ago, but uptill now, no facilities are provided completely. Even the roads and streets are incomplete in that area. iii)
That since last 15 years, due to the climatic effect, hygienic problems, stress & tension and other prevailing circumstances, the residents of this colony like in other area, are going to become the victims of different diseases like diabetes, hypertension and other heart problems. The walk is only treatment which does not cost to anybody. In this situation, the residents of this colony submitted appeals to the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and other Government functionaries. Ultimately, the National Bank of Pakistan came forward and after spending about one crore rupees, the Jinnah Park situated in this colony, was organized, walk tracks were constructed
and
after
making
other
necessary
arrangements, it was opened for walking and recreation facilities of the residents of this colony. Since last 6/7 years, the residents of Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony are enjoying the facility of this park. iv)
That the residents of this colony were astonished when 3/4 months prior to this date, the respondent No. 4 started to destroy the walk tracks, installation of some turbine and machinery, construction and establishment of shops & Khokhas. The petitioners and other residents of the colony tried to explore the matter from the respondents, but could not succeed to get proper information. Anyhow, it disclosed to the petitioners and other residents of the colony that the park is given to the respondent No. 4 by the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 for the establishment of a “Water Park”.
v)
That one of the residents of this colony submitted an application for certain copies of by-laws and other documents
on
26.6.2001
to
initiate
the
legal
proceedings, but the same was refused vide letter No. G-124/594/DTP/MDA dated 29.7.2001. The petitioners and other residents of the colony submitted a request/representation before the respondents No. 1, 2 &
3,
but
there
was
no
response
to
this
request/representation. vi)
That the Director and Managing Director of respondent No. 4 are very influential persons having deep roots with the civil administration and bureaucracy, hurdled all the efforts of the petitioners; looking no way for the redressal of their grievance an application was submitted before the Hon’ble High Court, which was entertained on 4.7.2001 by Madam Justice Mrs. Fakharun-Nisa Khokhar, J. In this order, it was directed that a proper writ petition be filed by any aggrieved person.
vii)
That the subject of this application and order was published in different newspapers on which the respondents established a contact with some of the residents of the colony and assured that the contract agreement between respondents No. 1 & 4 shall be cancelled but under this plea, all the respondents accelerated the work of installation required in respect of Water Park. Now it is quite evident from the circumstances. The respondent No. 4 is going to start the operation of this water park within next few days.
viii) That the act and action of commercialisation of a civic facility is illegal, unlawful and ultra vires inter alia on the following mentioned: GROUNDS a)
That the place/space, once earmark & for the public facility/civic facility for the interest of general public cannot be converted for any other purpose.
b)
That the duty of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 after allotment, occupation and construction upon the plots remain to organize the record and to look after the colony.
They
are
authorised
to
remove
the
encroachments but certainly have no right to hand over the property of the colony to some other without the consent of the residents. c)
That the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 have charged the price of this park including all the other facilities provided in this colony, in the shape of development charges.
d)
That Rs. 10,000,000/- (one crore rupees) were spend to construct the walk-way and grass the said plot by the N.B.P. with the co-ordination and help of World Bank and destruction of the same is a loss to the Government exchequer.
e)
That Pakistan now-a-days is in the crisis of shortage of under-ground water and water level is going to be low. This type of water-park in the residential area requires a lot of water, which shall create a great problem for the shortage of water to the residents of this colony.
f)
That more than 150 houses including the houses of the petitioners are around this water park. There are slides having height of more than 100 feet. The people will enjoy in short wearing which will effect the sanctity of “Chadar & Char Deewary”.
g)
That the petitioners and residents of the colony shall be deprived from the facility of walk and recreation for which this park was meant at the time of establishment of this colony.
5.
That the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Judge n Chambers, vide judgment dated 11.6.02. Copies of writ petition & judgment are available as Annexes “A & B”.
6.
That the judgment dated 11.6.02 is impugned inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS A)
That the impugned judgment is against the natural justice and law of equity.
B)
that the impugned judgment is against the norms of justice and principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
C)
That the impugned judgment is against the law and facts of the case.
D)
That arguments in respect of matter of public importance were not considered and no finding on this point is available in impugned judgment.
E)
That the point of laches were not appreciated in the light of arguments advanced before the Hon’ble Court. The bonafide of respondents which was an important factor to put the matter in the purview of laches was not available. The approval was not given by the Authority, it was meeting of Governing Body in which the matter was taken up. The view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge about the constitution of the authority is also not correct. It is correct that no act or proceeding of the Authority shall be invalid merely be reason of any vacancy, or defect in the constitution of the authority but no finding is given if the members available were not associated or about the presence of non-members in the meeting.
F)
That the respondents as well as the Hon’ble Single Judge admitted the fact that no ownership is vested in the respondents and they only having the rights of management. How the respondents are authorized to transfer the park to respondent No. 4?
G)
That this is a hard fact that the park in dispute which was falling within the preview of civil amenities, was converted into commercial one and entry fee is levied even to enter into the park. If some free area is left by the respondent No. 4 that is not purposely for the general public, but it is a requirement for the shops established by the respondent No. 4 for which he is earning a sufficient amount as rent. The jogging area is accessible to the general public by the permits granted by respondent No. 4, which is a kind of restraint upon the liberty of general public. The conversion of said park into a commercial one is sufficiently proved.
H)
That the essence of sections 22 & 23 in connection with the argument to collect BETTERMENT FEE from the general public instead of transfer of park for commercialization were not appreciated by the Hon’ble Judge in chamber. If these sections read with section 76 (j) (l) (o) then this linkage brings a wider aspect for the management of the said park. In this situation, no need remains for the transfer of disputed park to the private sector.
I)
That article 9 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan was not fully appreciated and was taken into its limited scope by the Hon’ble Judge in chamber. The liberty and enjoyment of the residents in the surroundings of the said park definitely curtailed but not acknowledged by the Hon’ble Court. The findings of the Hon’ble Judge on this point are misconceived
and sub-division of disputed park certainly effect the right of enjoyment of the people living around. J)
That the definition of the Park and Amusement Park bifurcates the meanings as well, but has not been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Judge in chambers. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Intra Court Appeal may please be accepted and as a result W.P. No. 7019/2001 may also be accepted with the relief prayed. Any other order or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also be awarded to meet the ends of justice. Humble Appellant,
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: As per instructions of the client, this is the first Intra Court Appeal on the subject matter. No such appeal has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate Note: The office is requested to put I.C.A. No. 108/2002 along-with this I.C.A.
Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Naseem Akhtar wife of R.N. Rahat Nawaz, R/o 536/D Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled appeal 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 July 2002 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. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEX. ===================================== Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copy of Annex “A” is not available. However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been annexed with the appeal, which is the true copy of the original document. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of the document. 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. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
STAY APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Naseem Akhtar wife of R.N. Rahat Nawaz, R/o 536/D Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan.
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 July 2002 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.
I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Urgent Form
2
Stamp Paper worth Rs. 1000/-
3
Intra Court Appeal
4
Affidavit
5
Copies of writ petition and order.
6
Dispensation Application.
7
Affidavit.
8
Application U/s 151 C.P.C.
9
Affidavit.
10
Vakalatnama
A& B
APPELLANT Dated: _________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa,
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
STAY APPLICATION.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the prima facie case of the appellant is strong one and there is
every
likelihood
to
be
decided
in
favour
of
the
applicant/appellant. 2. That the disputed park was ear-marked as a civic facility and the status of the same cannot be changed with the sweet will of the respondents. 3. That the applicant and the other residents of the colony have paid the price of this park in the shape of development charges.
4. That balance of convenience and balance of justice is in favour of the applicant. 5. That if the respondents shall start the operation of this water park, the applicant and the other residents of the colony shall face irreparable loss. In view of the above circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents may please be directed not start the operation of the said water park till the final decision of the main petition. 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
I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst. Naseem Akhtar wife of R.N. Rahat Nawaz, R/o 536/D Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan. ……Appellant/Petitioner
VERSUS 1. Multan Development Authority, through its Director General. 2. Director General, M.D.A. 3. Director, Estate & Land Management, M.D.A. 4. Rainbow International (Pvt.) Ltd. through its Managing Director opposite Hyundai Multan Motors, L.M.Q. Road, Multan. 5. Hakim Mehmood Ahmad Khan Advocate, Nazim Halqa No. 12, Multan. ……Respondents
APPEAL U/s 3 of Law Reforms (amendment) Act, 1972, against the judgment dated 11.06.2002 passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge-in-Chambers of this Hon’ble Court Bench at Multan, resulting the dismissal of writ petition of the appellants/petitioners.
CLAIM IN APPEAL: -
To set aside the impugned judgment and to accept the writ petition. Court fee: As required under the law, is affixed.
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 initially the writ petition was filed by the appellant alongwith two others (Rashida Ahmad Khan & Haq Nawaz), but, during the course of proceedings, the other two petitioners (Rashida Ahmad Khan & Haq Nawaz) preferred to withdraw their names as petitioners. 3. That the respondent No. 5 was allowed to be impleaded as party, but neither amended petition, nor written reply/parawise comments were filed on his behalf. However he is arrayed as respondent. 4. That the writ petition was filed on the following facts & grounds: FACTS i) That the petitioners are residents of Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, which was proposed, designed, established and controlled by respondents No. 1, 2 & 3. ii)
That the respondents No. 1, 2 and 3, at the time of establishment and designing of the said colony provided all civic facilities to meet the requirement of future e.g. space for graveyard, dispensaries, schools, parks, streets, roads, etc. At the time of allotment, the price of these plots provided for civic facilities was charged in the shape of development charges. This
colony was established about 20/22 years ago, but uptill now, no facilities are provided completely. Even the roads and streets are incomplete in that area. iii)
That since last 15 years, due to the climatic effect, hygienic problems, stress & tension and other prevailing circumstances, the residents of this colony like in other area, are going to become the victims of different diseases like diabetes, hypertension and other heart problems. The walk is only treatment which does not cost to anybody. In this situation, the residents of this colony submitted appeals to the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 and other Government functionaries. Ultimately, the National Bank of Pakistan came forward and after spending about one crore rupees, the Jinnah Park situated in this colony, was organized, walk tracks were constructed
and
after
making
other
necessary
arrangements, it was opened for walking and recreation facilities of the residents of this colony. Since last 6/7 years, the residents of Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony are enjoying the facility of this park. iv)
That the residents of this colony were astonished when 3/4 months prior to this date, the respondent No. 4 started to destroy the walk tracks, installation of some turbine and machinery, construction and establishment of shops & Khokhas. The petitioners and other residents of the colony tried to explore the matter from the respondents, but could not succeed to get proper information. Anyhow, it disclosed to the petitioners and other residents of the colony that the park is given to the respondent No. 4 by the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 for the establishment of a “Water Park”.
v)
That one of the residents of this colony submitted an application for certain copies of by-laws and other documents
on
26.6.2001
to
initiate
the
legal
proceedings, but the same was refused vide letter No. G-124/594/DTP/MDA dated 29.7.2001. The petitioners and other residents of the colony submitted a request/representation before the respondents No. 1, 2 &
3,
but
there
was
no
response
to
this
request/representation. vi)
That the Director and Managing Director of respondent No. 4 are very influential persons having deep roots with the civil administration and bureaucracy, hurdled all the efforts of the petitioners; looking no way for the redressal of their grievance an application was submitted before the Hon’ble High Court, which was entertained on 4.7.2001 by Madam Justice Mrs. Fakharun-Nisa Khokhar, J. In this order, it was directed that a proper writ petition be filed by any aggrieved person.
vii)
That the subject of this application and order was published in different newspapers on which the respondents established a contact with some of the residents of the colony and assured that the contract agreement between respondents No. 1 & 4 shall be cancelled but under this plea, all the respondents accelerated the work of installation required in respect of Water Park. Now it is quite evident from the circumstances. The respondent No. 4 is going to start the operation of this water park within next few days.
viii) That the act and action of commercialisation of a civic facility is illegal, unlawful and ultra vires inter alia on the following mentioned: GROUNDS a)
That the place/space, once earmark & for the public facility/civic facility for the interest of general public cannot be converted for any other purpose.
b)
That the duty of respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 after allotment, occupation and construction upon the plots remain to organize the record and to look after the colony.
They
are
authorised
to
remove
the
encroachments but certainly have no right to hand over the property of the colony to some other without the consent of the residents. c)
That the respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 have charged the price of this park including all the other facilities provided in this colony, in the shape of development charges.
d)
That Rs. 10,000,000/- (one crore rupees) were spend to construct the walk-way and grass the said plot by the N.B.P. with the co-ordination and help of World Bank and destruction of the same is a loss to the Government exchequer.
e)
That Pakistan now-a-days is in the crisis of shortage of under-ground water and water level is going to be low. This type of water-park in the residential area requires a lot of water, which shall create a great problem for the shortage of water to the residents of this colony.
f)
That more than 150 houses including the houses of the petitioners are around this water park. There are slides having height of more than 100 feet. The people will enjoy in short wearing which will effect the sanctity of “Chadar & Char Deewary”.
g)
That the petitioners and residents of the colony shall be deprived from the facility of walk and recreation for which this park was meant at the time of establishment of this colony.
5.
That the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble Judge n Chambers, vide judgment dated 11.6.02. Copies of writ petition & judgment are available as Annexes “A & B”.
6.
That the judgment dated 11.6.02 is impugned inter-alia on the following: GROUNDS A)
That the impugned judgment is against the natural justice and law of equity.
B)
that the impugned judgment is against the norms of justice and principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
C)
That the impugned judgment is against the law and facts of the case.
D)
That arguments in respect of matter of public importance were not considered and no finding on this point is available in impugned judgment.
E)
That the point of laches were not appreciated in the light of arguments advanced before the Hon’ble Court. The bonafide of respondents which was an important factor to put the matter in the purview of laches was not available. The approval was not given by the Authority, it was meeting of Governing Body in which the matter was taken up. The view taken by the Hon’ble Single Judge about the constitution of the authority is also not correct. It is correct that no act or proceeding of the Authority shall be invalid merely be reason of any vacancy, or defect in the constitution of the authority but no finding is given if the members available were not associated or about the presence of non-members in the meeting.
F)
That the respondents as well as the Hon’ble Single Judge admitted the fact that no ownership is vested in the respondents and they only having the rights of management. How the respondents are authorized to transfer the park to respondent No. 4?
G)
That this is a hard fact that the park in dispute which was falling within the preview of civil amenities, was converted into commercial one and entry fee is levied even to enter into the park. If some free area is left by the respondent No. 4 that is not purposely for the general public, but it is a requirement for the shops established by the respondent No. 4 for which he is earning a sufficient amount as rent. The jogging area is accessible to the general public by the permits granted by respondent No. 4, which is a kind of restraint upon the liberty of general public. The conversion of said park into a commercial one is sufficiently proved.
H)
That the essence of sections 22 & 23 in connection with the argument to collect BETTERMENT FEE from the general public instead of transfer of park for commercialization were not appreciated by the Hon’ble Judge in chamber. If these sections read with section 76 (j) (l) (o) then this linkage brings a wider aspect for the management of the said park. In this situation, no need remains for the transfer of disputed park to the private sector.
I)
That article 9 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan was not fully appreciated and was taken into its limited scope by the Hon’ble Judge in chamber. The liberty and enjoyment of the residents in the surroundings of the said park definitely curtailed but not acknowledged by the Hon’ble Court. The findings of the Hon’ble Judge on this point are misconceived
and sub-division of disputed park certainly effect the right of enjoyment of the people living around. J)
That the definition of the Park and Amusement Park bifurcates the meanings as well, but has not been taken into consideration by the Hon’ble Judge in chambers. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Intra Court Appeal may please be accepted and as a result W.P. No. 7019/2001 may also be accepted with the relief prayed. Any other order or relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit, may also be awarded to meet the ends of justice. Humble Appellant,
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: As per instructions of the client, this is the first Intra Court Appeal on the subject matter. No such appeal has earlier been filed before this Hon’ble Court. Advocate Note: The office is requested to put I.C.A. No. 108/2002 along-with this I.C.A.
Advocate
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Naseem Akhtar wife of R.N. Rahat Nawaz, R/o 536/D Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan.
I, the above named deponent do hereby solemnly affirm and declare that the contents of the above-titled appeal 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 July 2002 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. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
APPLICATION FOR DISPENSING WITH THE FILING OF CERTIFIED COPY OF ANNEX. ===================================== Respectfully Sheweth:That certified copy of Annex “A” is not available. However, uncertified/photo state copy of the same has been annexed with the appeal, which is the true copy of the original document. It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble court may please dispense with the filing of aforesaid copy of the document. 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. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
STAY APPLICATION. AFFIDAVIT of: Mst. Naseem Akhtar wife of R.N. Rahat Nawaz, R/o 536/D Shah Rukn-e-Alam Colony, Multan.
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 July 2002 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.
I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
INDEX S. No. DESCRIPTION OF DOCUMENTS ANNEXES PAGES 1
Urgent Form
2
Stamp Paper worth Rs. 1000/-
3
Intra Court Appeal
4
Affidavit
5
Copies of writ petition and order.
6
Dispensation Application.
7
Affidavit.
8
Application U/s 151 C.P.C.
9
Affidavit.
10
Vakalatnama
A& B
APPELLANT Dated: _________ Through: Hammad Afzal Bajwa,
Sheikh Muhammad Faheem,
Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20959
Advocate High Court, 28-District Courts, Multan. C.C. No. 20176
IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, MULTAN BENCH, MULTAN.
In re: C.M. No. _________/2002 In I.C.A. No. ________/2002 In W.P. No. 7019/2001
Mst.Naseem Akhtar
Vs.
M.D.A. etc.
STAY APPLICATION.
Respectfully Sheweth: 1. That the prima facie case of the appellant is strong one and there is
every
likelihood
to
be
decided
in
favour
of
the
applicant/appellant. 2. That the disputed park was ear-marked as a civic facility and the status of the same cannot be changed with the sweet will of the respondents. 3. That the applicant and the other residents of the colony have paid the price of this park in the shape of development charges.
4. That balance of convenience and balance of justice is in favour of the applicant. 5. That if the respondents shall start the operation of this water park, the applicant and the other residents of the colony shall face irreparable loss. In view of the above circumstances, it is respectfully prayed that the respondents may please be directed not start the operation of the said water park till the final decision of the main petition. 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
