Find a Lawyer

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-

--- Art. 199-Writ- Land lawfully allotted to petitioner unauthorisedly occupied by Police Department for last 12 years without any permission from owner or other justification and used for growing vegetables-Land not vacated nor its possession delivered to owner despite repeated requests to respondents and other authorities Respondents not in a position to place on record any document or other evidence justifying continued and persistent occupation of land and State Counsel expressing his inability to resist or contest case Respondents instead of protecting rights of petitioner conniving at it and let them violated with impunity-Only thing encouraging Police Department to resort to such attitude being it themselves to enforce law and no other agency there being to compel them to obey law Respondent (Superintendent of Police) in circumstances directed to ensure possession of property being delivered to petitioner within seven days.-[Possession]. [pp. 225, 226IA, B & C

Ch. Muhammad Hussain for Petitioner.

Khalil Ramdey, A. A: G. for Respondents. Date of hearing : 20th November 1978.

The petitioner who is an old retired Lieutenant-Colonel from the Pakistan Army, was allotted an area measuring 4 kanals, situate in Mahal Mianapura, Sialkot City bearing Khasra No. 329, Khewat No. 337, Khatauni No. 700, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sialkot. The plot in question had been occupied by the Police Department for the last about 12 years without any permission from the owner or other justification. The police people are stated to be growing vegetables there but no rent or share of the produce had been given to the petitioner nor had the possession been restored on his requests. The petitioner is stated to have made many representations and requests in writing to the respondents and other authorities including the Sub-Martial Law Administrator, Sialkot for restoration of possession but without any fruitful results. He has, therefore, filed the present writ petition.

2. I had sent for the learned Assistant Advocate-General on the first date of hearing and directed him to ask the Superintendent of Police, Sialkot to do justice to the petitioner, but he did not consider it necessary to do so.

The Assistant Advocate-General was rather informed that the District Police was trying to get the plot acquired. I, therefore, admitted this' petition and issued a notice to the respondent. The learned Assistant Advocate-General appeared on their behalf. today but is not a position;

to place on record any document or other evidence justifying the continued and persistent occupation of the land by the respondent. He infect expressed his inability to resist or contest the case of the petitioner in the circumstances of the case.

3. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and going through the record, I find that this case encompasses a very unfortunate situation in which various district Police Officers for the last 12 years could not restore to the petitioner what was admittedly his and what was in the possession of their own employees. Rather, instead of helping the petitioner, to regain the possession of his property and protecting his rights, they connived at it and let them be violated with impunity. Not only that, the petitioner who is an old man and a lawful allottee, has been given neither any rent nor any other compensation for the use of his property for all these long 12 years. There is certainly no angle of pride available at all to this agency which is there to protect the life, liberty and property of the citizens. The only thing that might have encouraged them to resort to such an attitude is that as they themselves are to enforce law, no other agency could compel them to obey the law. This is most unfortunate and it may be an appropriate situation to be looked into with deep concern by respondent No. 2 and the Government.

I, therefore, allow this petition and direct the respondent No. 1 to ensure that possession of the property is delivered to the petitioner within a period of seven days from the receipt of this order. The respondents sball also pay costs of this petition.

s. A. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.