Case Details

Citation(s)
2000 SLG 4006 2000 SLD 4006 = 2000 MLD 779
Sindh High Court
Constitutional Petition No.3495-D of 1993, decided on 17th September, 1999.
Presented By: Muhammad Roshan Essani and S. A. Rabbani, JJ
Nadeem Akhtar for Petitioner. Ainuddin Khan, A.A.-G for
Respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Naeem-ur-Rehman for
Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.

Mrs. IQBAL BANO---Petitioner

VERSUS

GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Member, Board of Revenue, Land Utilization Department, Karachi and 4 others---Respondents

Law:

Section:

(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---   ---Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Factual disputes and questions of disputed title could not be resolved in the proceedings in a petition under Art. 199 of the Constitution---Where rights of the petitioner in the plot were. disputed by the respondent (Board), such disputes could only be adjudicated upon and resolved by Civil Court in civil suits on the basis of evidence---Remedy for petitioner in such situation was before the Civil Court---Petition being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances.   (b) Words and phrases---   ----"Trespass"---Meaning and scope---Trespass does not need any "jurisdiction" and there can be no case where somebody has a "jurisdiction" to "trespass" property of the others.   Nadeem Akhtar for Petitioner.   Ainuddin Khan, A.A.-G for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.   Naeem-ur-Rehman for Respondents Nos. 4 and 5.   Date of hearing: 14th September, 1999.   JUDGMENT   S.A. RABBANI, J.---The dispute brought before the Court through this petition relates to rights in a four acres piece of land at Ibrahim Hyderi, District Karachi East. Petitioner claims that lease rights in the plot have been granted to her by the concerned Revenue Authorities.   2. The Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Korangi Creek, respondent No.5, claimed that the land in dispute belongs to the Cantonment and is reserved for graveyard. The staff of the respondent No.5 visited the site and affixed sign boards of graveyard and demolished rooms constructed by the petitioner there.   3. This petition was, therefore, filed for a declaration that "respondent. Nos 4 and 5 have no jurisdiction to either trespass upon the aforesaid land belonging to the petitioner, or demolish the construction over the said plot raised by the petitioner, or to affix sign boards notifying that the said land has been converted into a graveyard... ".   4. A direction by the Court to respondents Nos.4 and 5 has also been sought that they "should refrain from doing anything they are not permitted by law to do, and to do…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register