Illegal possession of EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTIES BOARD.
 |
| Illegal possession of EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTIES |
ریاستی زمین پر غیر قانونی قبضہ
سول مقدمے میں ناکامی کے بعد آئینی درخواست بدنیتی پر مبنی تھی:
آئینی دائرہ اختیار غیر قانونی قبضہ کو تحفظ فراہم نہیں کرتا:
درخواست گزار غیر قانونی کرایہ وصول کر رہے تھے:
عدالتی فیصلہ:
Must read judgment.
2024 C L C 682
[Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)]
Before Mirza Viqas Rauf, J
SAMINA NAZ and 5 others----Petitioners
Versus
EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTIES BOARD through Administrator Northern Zone, Evacuee Trust Properties Board, 7th Road, Rawalpindi and another----Respondents
Writ Petition No.2826-R of 2022, heard on 11th October, 2023.
Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act (XIII of 1975)---
----S. 25---Scheme for Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977, Chapter VI-A, Cl. 18-A(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Evacuee property, status of---Recovery of possession---Building structure---Entitlement structure vests in the Board---Petitioners after remaining unsuccessful till Supreme Court assailed act of recovery of possession of "subject property" by respondent Board---Validity---Petitioners could not take refuge under the doctrine of election to protect their possession, which was not only unauthorized but illegal---Petitioners being not entitled for superstructure built upon "subject property", as in terms of Cl. 18-A(5) Chapter VI-A of Scheme for Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977, structure raised on evacuee trust property vested in respondent Board---Petitioners after being unsuccessful in first round arising from civil suit had devised mechanism to protect their illegal and unauthorized possession upon "subject property" by filing a Constitutional petition---Petitioners did not have any right in "subject property" and filing of Constitutional petition was nothing but to thwart and circumvent process of law---Constitutional jurisdiction was not meant to provide aid to a party, who was adamant to grab property of State---On account of unauthorized possession, petitioners had already earned a lot of money through rent received from tenants of shops constructed on "subject property"---High Court declined to interfere in matter as it was not only frivolous but vexatious---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Devan Sugar Mills Limited and others PLD 2018 SC 828; Liaqat Ali Khan and 10 others v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Member (Judicial-V) and 6 others 2021 YLR 349; Irfan Ullah Khan v. Province of the Punjab and others 2020 CLC 594 and Atif Riaz v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs, Islamabad and 6 others PLD 2023 Lah. 536 ref.
Arshad Ali and 3 others v. Sartaj and 8 others 2016 YLR 127; Anjum and 2 others v. Mst. Sufaidan and 3 others PLD 1989 Lah. 103; Mst. Hussain Bibi v. Siraj Din PLD 1998 Lah. 548; Muhammad Latif v. Bashir Ahmad and 7 others 2004 CLC 1010 and Ali Ahmad and another v. Muhammad Fazal and another 1972 SCMR 322 rel.
Mujeeb ur Rehman Kiani for Petitioners.
Muhammad Siddique Awan, Additional Attorney General for Pakistan, Hafiz Ahsan Ahmed Khokhar, Sh. Iftikhar Ahmad and Syed Najam ul Hassan Hashmi, Advocates/Legal Advisors for Respondent No.1.
Nemo for Respondents No.2.