November 15, 2006	Wednesday	Shawwal 22, 1427

Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window).

LAHORE, Nov 14: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday observed that certain provisions of the Illegal Dispossession Act, enacted in the year 2005 to prevent unlawful possession of others property, required interpretation as they were so ambiguous as to be misused.

Justice Asif Saeed Khan Khosa sent a writ petition which raised questions about the law to Chief Justice Iftikhar Husain Chaudhry for the purpose of constituting a larger bench to make a judicial review of the law to remove ambiguities. The court also called the attorney-general and the Punjab advocate-general to assist the court in scrutinizing the act.

The writ petition was filed by Zahoor and his son, now serving prison term after being convicted by an additional district and sessions court of Gujranwala.

He stated that he and his son were sentenced under the act which was wrongly interpreted by the sessions court. He submitted his brothers Mohammad Akram and Mohammad Aslam were complainants in the criminal case and they had involved them for taking illegal possession of their agricultural land in a nearby village measuring 11 kanals and 10 marlas.

The petitioner stated that the land owed by their forefathers and a dispute over its inheritance had arisen some years ago after which parties were engaged in prolonged litigation.

He submitted that certain provisions of the act were unclear and needed interpretation as they failed to address to the situation where family property was in dispute. He submitted that these ambiguous provisions of the law should be interpreted by the superior courts to avoid their misuse.

Fork-lifting of CARS: Chief Justice Iftikhar Husain Chaudhry of the Lahore High Court on Tuesday issued notices to Lahore city district government and senior traffic police officers in the hearing of a writ petition which challenged the fork-lifting of cars as an illegal act.

The court adjourned till Dec 5 further hearing of the writ petition for admission, once the petition was fixed, after lawyer-petitioner M D Tahir re-filed the same for the third time after removing objections.

The petitioner stated that fork-lifting of cars in a situation when there was a serious parking problem in the city was unlawful.

He was of the view that the CDGL should ensure provision of adequate parking facilities to the citizens before resorting to lifting of cars as such a duty was obligatory for the district administration and the traffic police.

Mr Tahir also contended that police contractors used fork-lifters which did not bear registration numbers and such an act was in violation of the law and amounted to vehicle theft. He also stated that cars were removed by the contractors in the absence of their owners and they (the owners) felt shocked on finding that their cars were missing. They also faced problems in getting the vehicle back, he added.

The lawyer had earlier moved the writ petition last month but the LHC registrar office returned that twice. Later, it was fixed before the chief justice who upheld the office objection.

The court issued notices to the DIG and SP traffic police, besides the CDGL, requiring them to submit their reply.