07-22-2011, 04:05 PM
A DIVISION bench of the Lahore High Court on Thursday adjourned the hearing until July 28 of a writ petition challenging illegal occupation of 68 Kanal land by administration of Jhelum Military College situated at Sarai Alamgir.
As proceedings started on Thursday, a law officer turned up on behalf of the Punjab government and sought time to apprise the court of the real situation. The bench comprised of Acting Chief Justice Sh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ameer Bhatti while the petition was filed by Sarfraz Ahmad advocate in the public interest on the behalf of people of the area.
The petitioner contended that the 68 kanal and 15 marla piece of land situated in the area of Nai Abadi, Tehsil Sarai Alamgir, was owned by Punjab government while people of the locality were using it as public park for a long time and funeral prayers were being offered there. He alleged that the Jhelum Military College commandant had started erecting a boundary wall around the land and established a CNG station on it that had been leased out to a contractor. He said the respondent had usurped public utility and denied their access to the park.
The petitioner contended that under the law, property owned the government could not be used without due process of law.
As proceedings started on Thursday, a law officer turned up on behalf of the Punjab government and sought time to apprise the court of the real situation. The bench comprised of Acting Chief Justice Sh Azmat Saeed and Justice Ameer Bhatti while the petition was filed by Sarfraz Ahmad advocate in the public interest on the behalf of people of the area.
The petitioner contended that the 68 kanal and 15 marla piece of land situated in the area of Nai Abadi, Tehsil Sarai Alamgir, was owned by Punjab government while people of the locality were using it as public park for a long time and funeral prayers were being offered there. He alleged that the Jhelum Military College commandant had started erecting a boundary wall around the land and established a CNG station on it that had been leased out to a contractor. He said the respondent had usurped public utility and denied their access to the park.
The petitioner contended that under the law, property owned the government could not be used without due process of law.