Pakistan Case Law← Search
2002 CLC 1852

PRINCE FLYING COACH, FAISALABAD through Proprietor and 2 others vs

Citation2002 CLC 1852
CourtLahore High Court
Judge(s)Jawwad S. Khawaja, Abdul Shakoor Paracha
ResultAppeal dismissed

' JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.--- This appeal impugns the judgment of the learned Single Judge in Chamber, dated 3-7-2000 passed in Writ Petition No,13515 of 1993. The relevant portion of the judgment, with which the appellant is aggrieved, is reproduced as under:-- "As far as the stance taken by certain petitioners. In Writ Petitions Nos.13515 of 1997 and 22054 of 1997 to the construction of stands at Abdullahpur Rakh Branch Canal over the green belt is concerned that has been totally denied by the respondents. It is stated by the respondents in their comments that it was a State land which was earlier in their possession of Irrigation Department for the use of silting tank. This land according to the Revenue Record was owned by the Provincial Government. Even otherwise the issue whether the establishment of stands at Abdullahpur Rakh Branch Canal has polluted the environmental atmosphere and has frustrated the use of green belt is a disputed question of fact resolution whereof would entail A a detailed enquiry as such, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 would not be attracted and it would be for the Commissioner, Faisalabad Division being the administrative head or the Deputy Commissioner as the case may be, to decide this issue by giving opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned .

(d) Commissioner, Faisalabad Division shall also look into the grievance whether the site utilized for buses/coaches stands at Rakh Branch Canal Abdullahpur is polluting the environmental conditions atmosphere of the area. He shall also ensure that the Green Belt is not misused and its character should be kept intact for the benefit of general public."

2. In our opinion, the aforesaid order is very fair and in any event does not cause any prejudice to the appellant. In the circumstances we find no merit in this appeal, which is dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search