Law: Constitution of Pakistan

Section: 199

Law: Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, (XVIII of 2010)

Section: 3,4,5

Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

Section: 42

(a) Constitution of Pakistan Art. 199--- Constitutional petition--- Scope--- Constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a substitute for revision or appeal and the interference is on limited grounds as an exception and not the rule.        Arif Fareed v. Bibi Sara and others 2023 SCMR 413 and M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari and 2 others 2023 SCMR 1434 rel. (b) Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act (XVIII of 2010) Ss. 3, 4 & 5--- Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42--- Removal of encroachment--- Declaration of title--- Fraud--- Petitioner / plaintiff was aggrieved of dismissal of his suit by respondent / Anti-Encroachment Tribunal against recovery of possession of suit property as encroachment--- Validity--- Petitioner / plaintiff did not prove any legal title or character in the property--- Plaintiff under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 must establish a legal character or right to property to maintain a declaratory suit--- Petitioner / plaintiff lacked registered instrument or sanctioned mutation and had no such legal character--- Bare declaration, under proviso to S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was barred when further relief could be sought--- Petitioner / plaintiff could have sought specific performance against his vendors or approached the competent authority for regularization but instead sought a negative declaration against statutory authorities, which was not maintainable--- Fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings--- Reliance on fabricated and forged allotment orders was itself sufficient to non-suit the petitioner / plaintiff--- Courts could not lend their discretionary jurisdiction to a party which had based its case on forged documents--- High Court declined to interfere in the order of Anti Encroachment Tribunal, which had carefully examined the material, applied correct principles of law, and dismissed the suit, as there was no illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence in the judgment--- Petitioner / plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership without any valid instrument, mutation or sanction from the Board and had relied on inadmissible photocopies and unregistered…