| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1981 SLG 3098 = 1981 SLD 3098 = 1981 PLD 143 |
Peshawar High Court
Writ Petition No. 154 of 1981, decided on 6th April, 1981.
Presented By: Usman Ali Shah and Sardar Fakhre Alam Khan, JJ
Jan Muhammad Khan for Petitioners.
Writ Petition No. 154 of 1981, decided on 6th April, 1981.
Presented By: Usman Ali Shah and Sardar Fakhre Alam Khan, JJ
Jan Muhammad Khan for Petitioners.
RAHIM SHAH MIAN AND 5 OTHERS-PETITIONERS
VERSUS
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, PESHAWAR AND ANOTHER -Respondents
Law: Constitution of Pakistan 1973
Section: 199
Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-No proof adduced in support of peti tioners being owners of shops in dispute-Contention that petitioners having been in possession of shops since before Partition hence they became owners by efflux of time-Held, fallacious-Unless legally transferred State/Municipal property remains so and nobody can claim ownership by adverse possession-Shops being located on roads, and roads being State property, shops would vest in ownership of State Status of petitioners-That of trespassers upon State property-Tres passer cannot be allowed to invoke constitutional jurisdiction of High Court for perpetuation of his illegal possession in form of a trespass.- [Adverse possession]. ORDER USMAN ALI SHAH, J. The petitioners have claimed to be owners-in. possession of the shops in Kabari Bazar on Dalazak Road, Peshawar City, which was constructed before the Partition. It is alleged that the officers of the Municipal Corporation came on 24-12-1980 and started demolishing the shops, but on their request they stopped demolishing the shops and they were give 15 days' time to make alternative arrangements. The grievance of the petitioners therefore is that the Corporation could not take the impugned action without serving upon them a notice and as they are owners of the shops in question, the Corporation will have no right to interfere with their ownership. In this respect they have asked the directions to be issued to restrain the Municipal Corporation from demolishing/damaging the structures of the shops. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. When asked to show any proof in support of the fact that the petitioners are owner of the shops in question, he failed to do so. The burden of his argument was that the…