G-KZ4T1KYLW3 Plot encroachment | A neighbor completed his plot with the neighbor's plot due to the lack of space. The High Court declared that a person cannot become a judge himself. 2024 M L D 356

Plot encroachment | A neighbor completed his plot with the neighbor's plot due to the lack of space. The High Court declared that a person cannot become a judge himself. 2024 M L D 356

Plot encroachment | A neighbor completed his plot with the neighbor's plot due to the lack of space. 

A neighbor completed his plot with the neighbor's plot due to the lack of space. The High Court declared that a person cannot become a judge himself.

2024 M L D 356

درخواست گزار، جو پلاٹ نمبر 869 کے مالک تھے، نے اپنے ہمسائے، مدعا علیہ، کے پلاٹ نمبر 870 سے زمین کا ایک حصہ ایڈجسٹ کرنے کی کوشش کی



یہ کہانی دو ہمسایوں کے درمیان زمین کے ایک ٹکڑے پر قبضے کے تنازعے کی ہے۔ درخواست گزار، جو پلاٹ نمبر 869 کے مالک تھے، نے اپنے ہمسائے، مدعا علیہ، کے پلاٹ نمبر 870 سے زمین کا ایک حصہ ایڈجسٹ کرنے کی کوشش کی کیونکہ ان کا دعویٰ تھا کہ انہیں ان کا مکمل رقبہ نہیں ملا۔

درخواست گزاروں نے اپنے طور پر فیصلہ کیا کہ وہ اپنے پلاٹ کا رقبہ بڑھا لیں، لیکن اس عمل کو عدالت نے غیر قانونی اور غیر منصفانہ قرار دیا۔ عدالت کا کہنا تھا کہ کوئی بھی شخص اپنے حق میں خود فیصلہ نہیں کر سکتا اور نہ ہی قانون اپنے ہاتھ میں لے سکتا ہے۔ اگر انہیں کوئی مسئلہ تھا تو انہیں متعلقہ حکام سے رجوع کرنا چاہیے تھا۔

ٹرائل کورٹ نے کمیشن مقرر کیا جس نے تصدیق کی کہ درخواست گزاروں نے ہمسایہ کے پلاٹ سے 95 مربع فٹ کا حصہ تجاوز کیا ہے۔ اس کے بعد عدالت نے درخواست گزاروں کے خلاف فیصلہ سنایا، اور ان کی اپیل اور نظرثانی بھی مسترد کر دی گئی۔

Must read Judgement

2024 M L D 356

[Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)]

Before Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, J

Dr. KHUSHAL and another---Applicants

Versus

LEELA RAM---Respondent

R.A. No. 116 of 2019, decided on 15th April, 2022.

Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---

----Ss. 42, 8 & 54---Suit for declaration, possession and permanent injunction---Encroachment or neighbour's plot---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court, whereas the appeal and revision were dismissed---Execution petition was allowed and appeal thereagainst was also dismissed---Validity---Trial Court appointed a commission who opined that defendants were in possession of an area of 2,245 sq. feet instead of 2,150 sq. feet---City survey sheet of both the plots reflected that the petitioners being owner of plot No.869 had extended their plot boundaries to an area of 4-1 x 17-2 sq. feet from the respondent's plot No.870---In fact, the petitioners claimed that they were not given their area in toto and they had adjusted it from the neighbour's plot---Such assertion of the petitioners, at the face of it, appeared to be illegal and vandalizing---If the petitioners felt that their accurate area had not been given to them, they could have approached the concerned authorities for redressal of their grievance, rather than eating a slice out of land from their neighbours' plot---No one could be a judge, jury and executioner at the same time nor one could be judge in his own case---Site map clearly showed boundaries of both the plot Nos. 869 and 870 and clearly reflected that a piece of plot No. 870 had been encroached by plot No. 869---Revision application was dismissed.

       Sartar Iqbal Panhwar for Applicants.

       Zeeshan Malik for Respondent.

 



For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.

Popular articles 


































 































Post a Comment

Previous Post Next Post