Case Details

Citation(s)
2026 SLG 592 2026 SLD 592 = 2026 SHC 214
Sindh High Court
C.P. No.D-1266 of 2020
Presented By: Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho Mr. Justice Muhammad Jaffer Raza
Date of hearing: 12.02.2026 Mr. Siraj Ahmed Mangi, Advocate for petitioner. Ms. Nasima Mangrio, Advocate for respondent No.2.

(Usman Ghani ..

VS

..Federation of Pakistan & others)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Case Summary: The petition challenged alleged encroachment by Respondents No. 12 to 14 on land owned by Respondent No.2 (Karachi Port Trust – KPT). The petitioner claimed that private respondents were developing jetties on government land and that the KPT was not taking action despite multiple applications. The KPT denied any encroachment, asserting that the land remained under its possession and no illegal construction was allowed. The High Court observed that the dispute involved factual questions requiring evidence and detailed inquiry, which could not be resolved under Article 199 of the Constitution. The Court emphasized that matters requiring fact-finding fall within the jurisdiction of plenary courts, not constitutional writ petitions. The petition was therefore dismissed, confirming that the High Court cannot act as a fact-finding forum in such disputes. Sections/Articles Referenced: Article 199, Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 – Exercise of High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction. Two 2-Word Descriptions of the Case: Encroachment Dispute KPT Land ORDER SHEET   This petition impugns an encroachment being carried by the Respondent No. 12 to 14 at the land owned by Respondent No.2/KPT. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the private Respondents are developing Jetties on the government Land and such an act amount to encroachment on the part of Respondent No. 12 to 14 and official Respondents more particularly Respondent No.2 is not taking any action, despite addressing several applications preferred by the Petitioner. Learned counsel for the Respondent No.2 unequivocally denied the contention so raised in the petition. She contended that the land of KPT hasn’t been encroached by the Respondent No.12 to 14 and the subject land is under the possession of KPT. Heard and perused the record. Perusal of comments filed by the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register