Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
1992 CLC 1698

Syed UMAR DARAZ SHAH vs DIRECTOR, L.DA. and others

Citation1992 CLC 1698
CourtLahore High Court
Case No.Writ Petition No,7105 of 1991
Date1991-08-26
Judge(s)Gul Zarin Kiani
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' Applicant is in occupation of a small piece of plot as tenant of Evacuee Trust Property Board and pays them rent. On the plot, the applicant is shown to have constructed a room or two and is residing there. The Lahore Development Authority attempted to dismantle the existing constructions and take forcible possession of the plot from the applicant. LDA laid their claim to the property in possession of the applicant. Aggrieved of the attempt for his dispossession, applicant had invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. It is stated that the LDA has no authority to demolish the constructions on the plot and forcibly dispossess the applicant from it.

2. In a controversy emanating from disputed questions of fact, civil suit appears to be an effective alternate remedy. Each and every civil dispute cannot be taken up for resolution in extraordinary jurisdiction by this Court because to do so would clearly tantamount to bypassing the ordinary legal remedies available in appropriate legal forums established by law. That is neither the purpose nor requirement of extraordinary jurisdiction conferred by the Constitution on this Court.

Learned counsel signally failed to point out as to what were the compelling reasons for taking up the dispute for its decision in extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court and why was it not appropriate or possible for the applicant to sue his opponents in the Civil Court for getting the required relief.

' Confronted with the above, learned counsel referred me to an order of my learned brother Munir A. Sheikh, J in W.P. No,6598/91 passed on 10-8-1991 and submitted that petitioner's case was alike. I regret my inability to follow the course suggested to me by the learned counsel. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, I reiterate that civil suit is a proper, adequate alternate effective remedy. In this view of the matter, interference in extraordinary jurisdiction is declined and the petitioner is left to pursue his ordinary legal remedy at law. The petition is, accordingly dismissed in limine.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch