Find a Lawyer

Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 108 of 1976, decided on 30th November, 1976.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 12th March, 1976 in Criminal Revision No. 1029 of 1975 and Cr. Miscellaneous No. 91/1976).

---- S. 145 (4) read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)-- Leave to appeal-Dispute as to possession of immovable property Magistrate's order directing delivery of building (church) and its properties to petitioners upset by High Court on ground of respondents having been in possession of church and its properties on date respondent tried to seize its possession where after first information report lodged against them and proceedings under S. 145, Cc. P. C. started by Police-Finding of High Court supported by evidence and no error of law committed by such Court in appreciation of evidence Dispute for possession having begun on date taken notice of by High Court, submission as to such date being not relevant for determining possession but a later date when fresh proceedings initiated, held, not a question meriting grant of special leave particularly when proper remedy for petitioner lay in filing a civil suit for enforcement of their alleged rights.-[Dispute as to possession of immovable property].

Ch. Mohammad Anwar Buttar, Senior Advocate instructed by Iqbal Ahmad Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners.

Khakan Babar, Advocate instructed by Ali Imam Naqvi, Advocate-on -Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2,

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 3 and 4.

Date of hearing : 30th November, 1976.

The dispute in this petition for leave relates to a church in Sangla Hill, Sheikhupura District. Before the commencement of the disputes which led to this petition, the church together with the Pastor's House was owned by the United Presbyterian Church which is a seat of the Christian Protestant faith. Then, according to learned counsel, there was a split in the United Presbyterian Church and a new group known as the Meintyre Group was founded which illegally seized possession of the church and its properties. However, it is material to point out that this dispute began in 1971 and one Akbar Masih was the Priest of the church until his death in 1970. Learned counsel did not tell us when the Mcintyre Group started its alleged illegal activities in Sheikhupura, but it is common ground between the learned counsel that there was no dispute about the control of the church as long as Akbar Masih was alive, and for some time thereafter. Then, according to the petitioners, as the respondents tried to seize possession of the church and of the Pastor's House, on or about 13-5-1971 the second petitioner lodged an F. I. R. against some of the, respondents under sections 148, 325 and 149, P. P. C. The next day, the Police started proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. But, according to the petitioners their claim was accepted by the Police who submitted a repent that the church and its properties were in the possession of the third respondent, therefore possession of the church and its properties was given to the first petitioners, learned counsel stated that at the time of this police report and the delivery of possession of the church, this respondent had not joined the Meintyre Group. Next, according to learned counsel, the petitioners were again dispossessed by some of the respondents on 8-2-1972, therefore, for the second time the police submitted a report the same day to the Magistrate First Class, Sheikhupura, who, by his order dated 9-2-1972 attached and sealed the church and the church properties. The petitioners however claim that they had only registered a fresh case against some of the respondents under sections 448, 380 and 454, P. P. C. The proceedings thus instituted by the Police led to prolonged litigation, but it is sufficient to state that the Magistrate modified his earlier order attaching the church on 3-10-1973 and allowed the petitioners to use the church for their services and ceremonies. Therefore, the church was reopened on 28-10-1973 and the second petitioner claims to have been conducting services in the church there after. Finally the proceedings under section 145, Cr. P. C. were decided on 25-E-1975 by the Magistrate First Class Sheikhupura in favour of the petitioners, who ordered the delivery of the church and its properties to the petitioners. The respondents then filed a revision in the Lahore High Court against this order which was heard and allowed by a learned Single Judge of that High Court on 12-3-1978. Hence this petition for leave.

The learned Single Judge in the High Court allowed the revision of the respondents on the ground that they were in possession of the church an its properties on 13-5-1971. Learned counsel challenged this finding; but it is clearly not a case of no evidence. And learned counsel admitted that there had been no sectarian disputes as long as Akbar Masih was the Priest In charge of the church and that the daughter of Akbar Masih deceased had supported the claim of the respondents in her evidence. In the circum stances, the finding of the High Court is supported by evidence and there is no error of law in the appreciation of evidence by the High Court. In an case, learned counsel main contention was that the date for determining possession under subsection (4) of section 145, Cr. P. C. was the date of the second round of litigation between the parties, namely 8-2-1972. But as the learned Single Judge had allowed the revision of the respondents on the ground that the respondents were in possession on 13-5-1971. Mr. Buttar submitted that the High Court had misread the provisions of section 145, Cr. P. C. But the dispute about possession, even according to the petition for leave, had begun on 13-5-1971 therefore, learned counsel relied on the fact that the petitioners had only lodged a complaint against the respondents under sections 148, 325 and 148, P. P. C. That is correct, but it not disputed that the Police had commenced proceedings the next day under section 145, Cr. P. C. and the view of the High Court was that it was these proceedings which had been disposed of by the order of the Magistrate First Class, Sheikhupura. This view would appear to be correct. In any case the submission that the date for determining possession bad been errone ously held to be 13-5-1971 is not a question which would merit the grant, of special leave, the more so, as it is very clear from Mr. Buttar's submissions that the proper remedy for the petitioners would be to file a civil suit for' the enforcement of that alleged rights. Additionally, Mr. Khakan Babar gave an undertaking on behalf of the respondents that they would permit the petitioners to conduct their services in the church every day between 10-00 a.m. to 12-00 noon. The respondent also gave a further undertaking that they would permit the petitioners to conduct funerals, baptisms' and marriages together with all ceremonies required for the-a purposes in the church. At the request of Mr. Buttar we have recorded this under taking which appears to be fair.

The petition is without merit, but the petitioners have also filed an application for contempt. We have heard counsel and we are satisfied it is misconceived. Accordingly, we dismiss this application as well as the petition for leave.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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