Stray dogs shot dead in private housing society despite court ban
CCTV footage and photographs of the incident have surfaced, clearly showing armed individuals shooting at the dogs before fleeing the scene.
https://x.com/imasifmehmood/status/1945770682626748443
This act of violence occurred despite a clear ban imposed by the Lahore High Court on the killing of stray dogs.
The court has directed the Punjab government to enforce the TNVR (Trap, Neuter, Vaccinate, Release) policy, which aims to control the stray dog population through humane methods rather than lethal measures.
Residents of the area reported that the shooters arrived late at night, targeted the dogs, and fled immediately after the gunfire.
Locals claim this is not an isolated case; similar incidents have been reported in other parts of the city where stray dogs have been killed in the same manner.
While citizens acknowledge that stray dog attacks—particularly on children—pose a real danger and are a growing concern in urban areas, they also criticise government authorities, especially municipal corporations and the livestock department, for failing to implement effective and humane solutions.
There is currently no official government estimate of the stray dog population in Lahore. However, civil society groups and environmental organisations estimate that the city is home to between 30,000 and 35,000 stray dogs. The majority of these animals remain unvaccinated and unneutered, which increases the public health risk.
Experts warn that unless the TNVR policy is properly implemented, the stray dog issue will continue to worsen.
They caution that in the absence of official intervention, citizens may resort to harsh and unlawful actions on their own, leading to further legal and social complications.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
LHC restores three sisters' inheritance rights
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has restored the inheritance rights of three sisters after 38 years, nullifying a controversial Tamleek (gift mutation) that their brother had used to fraudulently deprive them of their lawful share in their father's property. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains of the LHC's Multan Bench ruled that the Tamleek mutation, executed on June 28, 1987, was invalid. The court rejected the respondent Abdul Sattar's claim that their late father had gifted him 33 Biggas and a few Marlas of land out of "love and affection". Abdul Sattar contended that the transfer was made while their father was in good health, and that he had obtained verbal consent from his sisters three to four months prior to the transaction. He also claimed that possession of the land was delivered to him at the time of the mutation. However, the court found neither any written proof of consent nor any testimony from independent witnesses to support the claims of offer, acceptance, or delivery of possession. Justice Wains observed that the justification provided — disinheriting the daughters out of love and affection for the son — was "seriously questionable". He added that even if the intention behind the Tamleek was described as pious, "it is inconceivable how depriving daughters of their Shariah-mandated inheritance could be treated as an act of virtue". He further noted, "The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of daughters in their father's estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable." Justice Wains strongly criticised the appellate court's contradictory findings noting that the appellate court had itself affirmed in paragraph No9 of its judgment that the trial court correctly found the alleged gift invalid. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains observed that the appellate court initially held that Abdul Sattar (defendant No.1) failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift (Tamleek), but then inexplicably reversed that conclusion in paragraph No.10 by overturning the trial court's findings on issue No.2, without offering any new evidence or legal justification.
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Chinese woman's khula takes legal twist
A case filed by a Chinese woman seeking divorce (khula) from her Pakistani husband has taken a new twist after conflicting decisions from the high court and a lower court, raising questions over whether she can legally obtain khula in Pakistan, who will get custody of their 12-year-old daughter, and whether the woman will be granted a visa to stay in the country until the matter is resolved. According to court documents, Chinese national Mir Guli married Shah Zeb, a trader from Charsadda, in China in 2011. A year later, she gave birth to a daughter, Sofia. Mir Guli claims that her husband, without informing her, registered Sofia's record with NADRA in Pakistan, effectively revoking her Chinese nationality, but did not register Mir Guli as his wife. Distressed by her husband's behaviour, she filed for khula in a Pakistani family court. Her counsel, Supreme Court Advocate Saeed Yousaf Khan, said the case took a major turn when Shah Zeb's legal team argued before the family court that since the marriage took place in China and was registered there, Pakistani courts lacked jurisdiction to decide on the matter. However, Justice Sajid Mehmood Sethi of the Rawalpindi Bench of the Lahore High Court ruled that the case could indeed be heard and decided in Pakistan where the wife is residing. The judge directed the lower court to hear the matter on a daily basis, keeping in view the woman's visa status, and instructed the Ministry of Interior's visa section to review her case. Despite this, Family Court Judge Taimoor Afzal dismissed Mir Guli's khula plea on jurisdictional grounds on the same day the high court declared the case admissible. An appeal has now been filed before the Sessions Judge, along with a separate petition for custody of 12-year-old Sofia, who is currently living with her father.
Express Tribune
15 hours ago
- Express Tribune
LHC voids 1987 land transfer, restores sisters' inheritance after decades
Listen to article The Lahore High Court (LHC) has restored the inheritance rights of three sisters after 38 years, nullifying a controversial Tamleek (gift mutation) that their brother had used to fraudulently deprive them of their lawful share in their father's property. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains of the LHC's Multan Bench ruled that the Tamleek mutation, executed on June 28, 1987, was invalid. The court rejected the respondent Abdul Sattar's claim that their late father had gifted him 33 Biggas and a few Marlas of land out of 'love and affection'. Abdul Sattar contended that the transfer was made while their father was in good health, and that he had obtained verbal consent from his sisters three to four months prior to the transaction. He also claimed that possession of the land was delivered to him at the time of the mutation. Read: 'Property may be gifted verbally' However, the court found neither any written proof of consent nor any testimony from independent witnesses to support the claims of offer, acceptance, or delivery of possession. Justice Wains observed that the justification provided — disinheriting the daughters out of love and affection for the son — was "seriously questionable". He added that even if the intention behind the Tamleek was described as pious, 'it is inconceivable how depriving daughters of their Shariah-mandated inheritance could be treated as an act of virtue'. He further noted, 'The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of daughters in their father's estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable.' Justice Wains strongly criticised the appellate court's contradictory findings noting that the appellate court had itself affirmed in paragraph No9 of its judgment that the trial court correctly found the alleged gift invalid. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains observed that the appellate court initially held that Abdul Sattar (defendant No.1) failed to prove the essential elements of a valid gift (Tamleek), but then inexplicably reversed that conclusion in paragraph No.10 by overturning the trial court's findings on issue No.2, without offering any new evidence or legal justification. The Holy Quran unequivocally guarantees the rights of daughters in their father's estate. Any attempt to defeat this divine commandment through a dubious transaction is not legally sustainable. Justice Malik Javed Iqbal Wains 'This contradictory approach is patently untenable in law,' Justice Wains remarked. 'It is a settled principle that once a court has conclusively affirmed a factual finding on a material issue—particularly relating to the validity of the main transaction—it cannot, without lawful justification or cogent reasons, render a subsequent finding that directly negates its own earlier conclusion." The judge ruled that such internal inconsistency amounted to 'a misreading and non-reading of evidence,' resulting in a miscarriage of justice that warranted intervention under the court's revisional jurisdiction. Contested Tamleek Justice Wains further noted that Sattar, even in his written statement, failed to specify the date, time, place, or witnesses for the purported offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession—core ingredients of a valid Tamleek. 'These fundamental omissions cast serious doubt on the authenticity of the alleged Tamleek and render the donee's claim legally unsustainable,' he ruled. He added that the appellate court overturned the trial court's well-reasoned findings without assigning sound or cogent reasons. 'Minor inconsistencies in the petitioner's evidence do not outweigh the complete failure of the defendant to prove the core ingredients of a valid gift,' Justice Wains concluded. Read More: Women locked out of inheritance claims According to the petition, the parties are legal heirs of Ashraf Ali (deceased). The petitioner, Rasheedan, along with Shakoori and Shakila, alleged that their brother, Abdul Sattar, fraudulently executed Tamleek Mutation No1874 on June 28, 1987, during their father's illness, to deprive them of their legal and Islamic inheritance. The plaintiff stated that Ashraf Ali was paralyzed and unable to speak, hear, or walk at the time. It further alleged that the mutation was attested with the connivance of revenue officials, using a fake thumb impression on the rapat Roznamcha Waqaiti - an entry in the daily diary of events kept by the patwari to maintain records of notable incidents about land affairs inlcuding natural disasters, transactions pertaining to land, mutations, gifts and more. The trial court initially ruled in favour of the sisters, but the appellate court later overturned that decision and ruled in favour of Abdul Sattar. The sisters then appealed to LHC, which reinstated the trial court's findings, declared the Tamleek mutation void, and restored the sisters' share in the inheritance.
