Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 22

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, 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

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, 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.

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, 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.

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, 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.

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, 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

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. A
6 Copy of auction proceeding & sketch. B&C
7 Copy of receipt. D
8 Copies of applications & letter. E, F, G & H
9 Copies of affidavit, approval, J, K, L & M
depositing letter and receipt.
10 Copy of letter. N
11 Application U/o 26, R-9 C.P.C.
12 Affidavit.
13 Dispensation Application.
14 Affidavit.
15 Vakalatnama

PETITIONER
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. 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. 745-
D/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. 749-
D/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, 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. 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. 744-
D/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 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. 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, 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