Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No. D‑1590 of 1980, heard on 25th April, 1983.

‑‑ S. 10‑Society‑Mere fact of formation of Society to have rights of its members protected at legal forum, held, does not confer any independent right in Society in regard to any property which is in possession of individuals and not Society.

‑‑ Art. 199‑‑Petitioner neither owner nor lessee of land occupied by him and same neither vesting in Society of which respondents members and steps of eviction could be taken by Society in accordance with law‑Police, held, had no authority in law to evict petitioner or any other occupant and Society concerned has only right to evict petitioner and others but in due course of law.

Syed Saeed Hassan for Appellant.

Salahuddin with Khalid M.. Ishaque for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3.

Ali Murtaza Hussain for Respondent No. 4.

Date of hearing : 25th April, 1983.

.‑The present petition has been filed by one Muhammad Hussain in the following circumstances.

The petitioner claims to be occupying a portion of a place which he calls "Sherpao Basti." The said Basti is stated to be comprising 337 houses which are stated to be occupied by 4,000 people since 20 years. It is stated that in order to get this Basri regularised, an Association was formed which was also registered with the Registrar of Societies. It seems that the said Association has been attempting to have that Basti regularised, but it is stated by Mr. Saeed Hassan at the bar that till today the said Basti has not been regularised. To put the matter straight in regard to title, it may directly be stated that the petitioner does not claim any right or ownership in respect of the plot in his occupation.

The grievance of the petitioner was that the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 came to the locality where the petitioner is stated to be residing and asked the petitioner and other inhabitants to vacate. It is alleged that the respon dents Nos. 1 to 3 in collusion with Bahadurabad Police (respondent No. 4) attempted to dispossess the petitioner and other inhabitants. Allegations have been made that no regular legal proceedings were initiated by the res pondents for obtaining the possession, but instead the respondents had resorted to intimidation, force and coercion.

In such circumstances, the relief that is claimed by the petitioner is, that the respondents be injuncted from dispossessing the petitioner or demolishing the house of the petitioner and other inhabitants, though not in due course of law.

This case was contested before admission. Mr. Khalid M. Ishaque appearing for respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 made a statement that in fact the constructions have been demolished and, therefore, this petition had become infructuous. The Nazir of the Court was directed to make a local inspec tion and report. It has been reported that a considerable amount of demoli tion had been done. Such report is on the record. Mr. Syed Saeed Hassan, however, states that in spite of demolition some of the inhabitants still con tinue to live at the spot though under the canopy of the blue skies. Be that as it may, we are not inclined to consider such fact as it is not necessary.

The first contention that has engaged our attention is in regard to the capacity of the petitioner to bring this petition in a representative capacity. Although a society is said to have been formed, surely this society is neither the owner, nor occupant of the land in question. The mere fact of formation of a Society to have rights of its members protected at legal forums does not. confer any independent rights in the Society in respect of any property, which can without contradiction be said to be in possession of individuals and not the Society. We, therefore, treat this petition as the petition of Muhammad Hussain, the petitioner as an individual.

Mr. Salahuddin has stated that respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 are the members of Kathiawar Co‑operative Housing Society. It is stated that this Society has been allotted land by Karachi Co‑operative Housing Societies Union Limited. Possibly the respondents Nos. 1, 2 and 3 wanted to evict the petitioner and for that purpose they may have asked for the assistance of respondent No. 4. Even if we hold this to be true still the question would be as to what relief can be granted to the petitioner. The petitioner is admittedly neither the owner nor lessee of this land. On the other hand the land in question vests in Co‑operative Housing Society of which the respondents Nos. 1 to 3 are members. It may be that the Society has a right to evict the petitioner or even every other person who is occupying the land, but surely steps for eviction have to be taken in accordance with law. Nothing has been pointed out to us to show that respondent No. 4 has any authority in law to evict the petitioner or any other person. In the above circumstances, we are of the view that Kathiawar Co‑operative Housing Society has only a right to evict the petitioner and other occupants, but is due course of law. In fact that is the relief that is being asked by the peti tioner, and we grant relief in favour of the petitioner only to that extent and no further.

This petition is disposed of in terms of the observation made in the last paragraph. The parties shall bear their own costs.

M. Y. H. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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