2014 S C M R 1351

2014 S C M R 1351
[Supreme Court of Pakistan]
Present: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, C.J., Jawwad S. Khawaja and Amir Hani Muslim, JJ
FAZAL UR REHMAN and others---Petitioners
Versus
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer (Revenue) Bhakkar and another---Respondents
Civil Petition No.1569-L of 2013, decided on 25th November, 2013.
(Against the judgment dated 9-10-2013 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in C.R. No.918 of 2013)
(a) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---
----S. 32---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Unauthorized occupant---No documentary proof to support

claim of occupation---Plea of petitioner that he had a 40 years possession over the land in question, therefore he
was dispossessed in violation of S. 32 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912---Validity---No
document existed in favour of petitioner to establish his claim to remain in occupation of the property in dispute---
Petitioner with no legal authority had occupied the premises in dispute---Petitioner was an unauthorized
occupant---Plea of petitioner regarding his 40 years possession over the land, could never be a ground for the
purpose of proprietary rights---Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.
(b) Administration of justice---
----Law leaned towards persons who believed in the rule of law and not those who took the law in their hands.
Ch. Mushtaq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners with Petitioner No.2.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 25th November, 2013.
ORDER
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---The petitioner has challenged concurrent findings of

the three Courts through this petition which has been filed against the judgment dated 9-10-2013 of the Lahore
High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revision No.918 of 2013.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the impugned
judgment; concluding paragraph of the same is reproduced as under:--
"6. For grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of suit petitioners-plaintiffs were required to
prove that prima facie good arguable case, balance of convenience in their favour and in case stay is not granted
they will face irreparable loss. Both the courts below found the petitioners not entitled for the grant of stay and the
only point argued before this Court that without exercising powers under section 32 of the Colonization of
Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 the respondents are not entitled to issue notice for vacation of constructed
residential quarters in question, I am afraid, the petitioners-plaintiffs cannot take refuge of section 32 of the Act
ibid. First of all they are illegal occupants over the residential quarters constructed by the Irrigation Department in
Canal Colony and not the land and further in a previous litigation they have no claim about the ownership of
quarter in issue. There is even no record that any application moved by them for grant of proprietary rights is
pending before Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners has
not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in refusing the temporary injunction by both the courts below.
I am unable to disagree the findings recorded by two Courts below. As such, no case for interference by this Court
while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. has been made out. Consequently, this civil revision
being devoid of merits is dismissed."
3. It is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner had a 40 years possession over the land in question;
therefore, he had been dispossessed in violation of section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab)
Act, 1912. We are not inclined because admittedly no document exists in favour of the petitioner to establish his
claim to remain in occupation of the property in dispute. Learned counsel stated that an application has been
moved before the Board of Revenue for the proprietary rights. We are not inclined because in our considered
opinion this argument had not been advanced earlier at any stage and it was not the case of the petitioner in any
manner. Contrary to it, it strengthens the plea of the respondent that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant.
We may add that the law lean towards persons who believe in the rule of law and not those who takes the law in
their hands as happened in the instant case where the petitioner with no legal authority had occupied the premises
in dispute. As far as the question that he was in possession for so many years is concerned, it can never be a ground
for the purpose of proprietary rights. The petitioner has failed to establish his case in his favour. The learned High
Court had rightly declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and maintained the orders of the Courts below,
thus, we find no merit in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. However if the
petitioner has any claim for damages he is free to approach the competent forum for redressal of his grievance.
MWA/F-6/SC Petition dismissed.

2014 S C M R 1351

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 S C M R 1351

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 S C M R 1351

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

2014 S C M R 1351

[Supreme Court of Pakistan]

FAZAL UR REHMAN and others---Petitioners

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through District Officer (Revenue) Bhakkar and another---Respondents

Civil Petition No.1569-L of 2013, decided on 25th November, 2013.

(a) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---

----S. 32---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Unauthorized occupant---No documentary proof to support

(b) Administration of justice---

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing: 25th November, 2013.

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.---The petitioner has challenged concurrent findings of

MWA/F-6/SC Petition dismissed.

You might also like