P L D 2010 Quetta 70
Before Qazi Faez Isa, C.J. and Muhammad Noor Meskanzai, J
MUHAMMAD RASHID ---Applicant
Versus
IRSHAD BEGUM and another ---Respondents
Contempt Application No.16 of 2008, in C.P.No.128 of 2000, decided on 29th June, 2010.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) ---
----Arts. 199 & 204 ---Contempt of Court Ordinance (IV of 2003), Ss.3/5 ---Application for
initiating contempt proceedings ---Applicant had alleged that respondent who was divorced
wife of deceased owner of property in dispu te, in violation of judgment of High Court, passed
in constitutional petition, had taken possession of one shop and one room of property of
deceased, while she was not legal heir of deceased being divorced wife before death of
deceased ---Contempt applicati on was resisted by the respondent contending that the
applicant had no locus standi, nor any right or interest in the property in dispute nor he was
the legal heir of the deceased owner -Counsellor the respondent had stated that respondent
was an old lady of about seventy years of age and was looking after a mentally challenged
son---Counsel for the respondent had further stated that, if any legal heir of deceased owner
would approach the respondent, she would vacate the premises in dispute ---Additional
Advo cate General also opposed contempt application on the ground that applicant had no
locus standi; and that in respect of unclaimed properties the State was the owner thereof ---
Property in dispute had not been claimed by any one ---Counsel for the respondent had
undertaken on behalf of the respondent that she would not sell, transfer or alienate the
property in dispute; and if any legal heirs of deceased owner would appear on the scene,
she would hand over the property to them ---In view of said undertaking no action of
contempt could be initiated ---Providing an abode to respondent who was an aged lady and
her mentally challenged son, would promote social and economic well -being ---Keen
interest shown by the applicant in the property in dispute had not been expla ined---
Contempt application was disposed of in the terms that respondent and her mentally
challenged son was permitted to retain possession of premises in dispute till the arrival of
any legal heir of deceased owner; that respondent and anyone claiming thr ough or under
her, would not sell, transfer or alienate said premises; and that if the respondent would
vacate the premises, same would be taken over by the State.
Nazeer Ahmed for Applicant
Abdul Wadood Khan for Respondents.
Nasrullah Achakzai, Ad dl. A. -G.
ORDER
This Contempt Application has been filed by the petitioner alleging that respondent No.1 in
violation of the judgment dated 22 -6-2000 passed in Constitutional Petition No.128 of 2000
has taken possession of the shop and one room situ ated on top of the said shop bearing
Khasra No.367, Khewat and Khatoni No.14/14, measuring 165 square feet, situated in
Mohal and Mouza Ward No.24, Tappa Urban Tehsil and District Quetta on Fatima Jinnah
Road, Quetta (hereinafter referred to as "premises") . The operative part of judgment passed
in Constitutional Petition No.128 of 2000 is reproduced herein under:
"Consequently the notice is discharged and the petition is dismissed. The IP/SHO
Police Station City Quetta is however directed to keep constant watch in respect of
the shop in question and no one should be allowed to use, utilize and occupy the same
till the arrival of the legal heirs of the deceased or determination of the title of the
same by competent Court as the case may be.
The petition s tands disposed of accordingly."
2. Learned counsel for applicant states that respondent No.1 was former wife of one
Muhammad Amiruddin, who before his death had divorced her and as such respondent
No.1 was not his legal heir and therefore, had no right t o occupy the said premises. Learned
counsel for the applicant further states that this position was confirmed by the aforesaid
judgment and by judgment in R.F.A. No.61 of 2002, appeal against whereof was also
dismissed by honourable Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the
legal heirs of late Muhammad Amiruddin have as yet not been traced out. However, in
view of the fact that the respondent No.1 has managed to obtain possession of the premises
illegally and in violation of this Cou rt's judgment contempt action should be initiated.
3. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent No.1 states that the contempt
application is not maintainable as the petitioner has no locus standi, nor any right or
interest in the said premises nor he is the legal heir of the late Muhammad Amiruddin.
Learned counsel further states, that matter of contempt is a matter between the Court and
the alleged contemner and prays that no action in this regard be taken as the respondent
No.1 is an old lady of about seventy years of age and looks after a mentally challenged son.
He further states that the said judgment had not restrained respondent No.1 from occupying
the said premises and the direction was issued to S.H.O. to keep the said shop vacant. He
further states that if any legal heir was to approach and upon his/her verification the
respondent No.1 would vacant the premises. It is also alleged that the applicant wants to
gain possession of the premises himself.
4. Learned Additional A. -G. also opp oses initiation of contempt on the ground that the
applicant has no locus standi. He further states that in respect of unclaimed properties the
State is the owner and admittedly as yet the property has not been claimed by any person.
He submits that it is obligation of the State to provide shelter to shelterless persons
particularly in the instant case where the person is an old lady, who has to take care of a
mentally challenged son. He therefore, has no objection for the widow and for her mentally
challen ged son to continue to live in the -premises provided the respondent No.1 does not
sell, transfer and or alienate the said premises and the property should be surrendered to the
State through Collector Quetta when she leaves. Learned counsel for respondent No.1
undertakes on behalf of the respondent No.1, who is also present in Court, that she will not
sell, transfer and or alienate the said premises and if any legal heirs of the late Muhammad
Amiruddin appear on the scene she will hand over the property to them after proper
verification and subject to any arrangement which may be made with such legal heirs.
5. If any contempt is committed of the order or judgment of a Court and the same does not
impinge on the right or interest of any other persons the cou rt has the discretion whether to
initiate any action for contempt. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case the fact
that learned Additional A.G. has opposed initiation of such action and in view of the
undertaking that has been given we are no t inclined to initiate any action for contempt. The
principles of policy in the Constitution require promotion of well -being of the people,
which includes providing basic necessities of life to those unable to earn their livelihood on
account of infirmity, sickness or unemployment. Providing an abode and means to earn a
livelihood to an aged lady and her mentally challenged son promotes social and economic
well-being. The keen interest shown by the applicant in the premises has not been
explained. According ly, this application is disposed of in the following terms: --
(1) The respondent No.1 and her mentally challenged son be permitted to retain
possession of the premises till the arrival of any legal heir of the late Muhammad
Amiruddin.
(2) The responden t No.1 and anyone claiming through or under her shall not sell,
transfer and or alienate the premises.
(3) If the respondent No.1 vacates the premises the same shall be taken over by the
State, through Deputy Commissioner/ Collector.
The aforesaid disp oses of the contempt application. However, as this matter has brought to
light certain important matters to light we direct Secretary Social Welfare, Senior Member
Board of Revenue and Collector to disclose the following: -
(1) The number of properties t hat have come to the State on account of there being
no owner of the same.
(2) The use to which the aforesaid properties have been put.
(3) What, if any arrangements have been made for widows and mentally challenged
person who have no means of support.
The information in respect of (1) and (2) to be provided by Senior Member Board of
Revenue and Collector and in respect of (3) by Secretary Social Welfare. The relevant law
on the subject may also be cited.
Office is directed to send copy of this orde r to Deputy Commissioner/Collector, Quetta,
Senior Member Board of Revenue and Secretary Social Welfare for information and
compliance. Copy be also sent to learned A. -G.
H.B.T./80/Q Order accordingly.This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error,
let us know.