Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Writ Petition No. 154 of 1981, decided on 6th April, 1981.
-- 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].
Jan Muhammad Khan for Petitioners.
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 ,petitioners are in possession of the disputed shops since before partition and thus, according to the learned counsel, they have become owners of the disputed shops by the efflux of time. This argument is simply fallacious. He did not produce any revenue record to show as to whom the area underneath the shops in question belonged. In that event, the question would be whether title to the area underneath the shops matured by adverse possession. But this question cannot be agitated against the State or for that matter against the Municipal Corporation. Unless legally transferred, State property shall always remain so and nobody can claim its ownership by adverse possession. In the absence of any revenue record to show whether the property belonged to a person other than the State, it can be legitimately inferred that the disputed shops were constructed upon State property. This view is a plausible view as the shops are located on the Road and as Road is a State property the area of the shops in question too would be the State property. The learned counsel was unable to rebut this proposition by any evidence aliunde. In the circumstances, the status of the petitioners is that of trespassers upon State property. A trespasser cannot be allowed to invoke the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court for the perpetuation of his illegal possession in the form of a trespass.
This writ petition, is therefore dismissed in limine.
S .A. H. Petition dismissed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer