Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No. 93 of 1983, decided on 9th February, 1983.

(Against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 14th December, 1982 in Writ Petition No. 3498 of 1982).

Art. 199‑Writ jurisdiction‑Controverted questions of fact‑Held, cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction of High Court Provisional Constitution Order (I of 1981), Art. 9..‑‑[Question of fact].

Raja Mahmood Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Tanvir Ahmed Khan, A. A.‑G. for Respondent.

Date of hearing : 9th February, 1983.

.‑The petitioners who are in occupation of shops at one time claimed by the Municipal Committee, Khushab, seek leave to appeal against the judgment in limine of the Lahore High Court whereby their cons titutional petition was dismissed.

The petitioners claimed to have obtained on rent sites in Gulistan Babar Khushab. They also claimed to have constructed shops over it and to have beets paying rent for the premises to the Municipal Committee. Subsequently the. Government of the Punjab claimed ownership of the site and the shops and thereupon the petitioners started paying rent to the Government. The Municipal Committee passed a resolution whereby these shops were to be demolished and a bus stand is to be constructed 'there. The petitioners chal lenged this action by constitutional petition which has been dismissed on the ground inter alia that proceedings are taken place under M. L. O. 821. The right of the Municipal Committee to evict the petitioners was found not to be lacking in view of the earlier tenancy agreement between the petitioners and the Municipal Committee.

The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that if at all the pro ceedings under M. L. O.821 were pending they were against only two of the petitioners, that is, petitioners Nos. 1 and 2 and not against others and that such proceedings should not have barred constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Further it is contended that there was a dispute regarding title between the Municipal Committee and the Government of the Punjab and unless it is resolved in favour of the Municipal Committee the latter could not proceed with a scheme of bus stand.

We find that the status of the petitioners as tenants, trespassers or licensees) is in dispute. It is a controverted question of fact. Such a question cannot be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Without pre judging the issues on facts the petitioners should have been directed to seek their remedy in the civil Court in accordance with the law. Constitutional Petition on such a subject was not, in any case competent. We do not find any merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.

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.