PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

MOAMBAR vs GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA Ss — 2022 CLC 1605 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Citation
2022 CLC 1605 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Court
Peshawar High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
CLC
Parties
MOAMBAR vs GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA Ss
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 42---D; S. 5; S. 29; S. 20; S. 24; S. 17; Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

MOAMBAR VS GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA Ss.5(1),17, 20, 24, 29, 32 & 92---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S.42---Declaration of title---Protected forest---Powers of Board---Scope---Petitioners / plaintiffs claimed to be owners of land which was not part of protected forest---Trial Court rejected / returned plaints on the ground of bar of jurisdiction of Civil Court---Validity---When once forest was declared protected and notification to such effect was issued and published in official gazette, then power to declare any protected forest as no longer protected rested with Government only--- Neither the Board nor any other authority could declare protected forest no longer protected--- Board had its relevance only when Government intended to declare any land or wasteland as a reserved or protected forest and had issued any notification to such effect under S.5(1) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002 in case of reserved forest and under S.29 read with S.5(1) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002, in case of protected forest---With determination of all disputes, issuance and publication of final notification under S.20 read with S.24 or S.29 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002, forum of Board would become functus officio and had no more remainedavailable---Same was the case with appellate forum provided under S.17 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002, therefore, no direction could be issued to Government for constitution of Board--- Petitioners had recourse to appropriate forum available under law--- Orders of rejection of plaint or its return made in pursuance to a judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court in an earlier case was per incuriam and did not constitute bar in the way of institution of fresh suits---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Head Notes

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English