Find a Lawyer

Constitutional Petition No.D‑588 of 1985, decided on 15th October, 1985.

‑‑Art.9‑‑Unauthorized occupants of property‑‑Status of‑‑No unauthorized occupant of shop/cabin situated in locality under management of City Development Authority, held, would have vested right to claim allocation of same which was in unauthorized occupation before granting concession of allotment by Authority‑‑Allotment and allocation order made by Authority with consultation of Association of such unauthorised occupants and accepted by petitioner, held, did not call for interference by High Court in Constitutional jurisdiction.

Obaidur Rehman, S.H Kizalbash, Deewan Bashir Alam and A. Raruf for Petitioners.

Saeed A. Shaikh, Advocate‑General for Respondents.

.--‑The petitioner alongwith other persons is in unauthorised occupation inside Babar Market, Karachi. They made representation for regularization of their possession. The governing body of respondent No.1 passed a resolution on 17‑1‑1982 resolving that all cabin holders be provided commercial plots of 15 sq. yards approximately each in the area specified by Director Planning and Urban Development. According to the petitioner he deposited the amount in full. He was issued allotment order in pursuance of the resolution passed by the governing body and he was allotted shop. No.357. According to him the petitioner was in possession of shop No.301, therefore, this shop should have been allotted to him. He made various representations to the authorities. The respondent No.2 vide his letter, dated 17‑2‑1985 informed the petitioner and others as under:

"Your case has been examined in detail and you were heard by the Director Land Management Karachi Development Authority. Since the allocation of alternate commercial plots was made by your own union and the plots now occupied by you also stand allocated to other members of the Union, therefore, it is not possible to regularise your possession. The change can, however, be allowed on mutual agreement ‑between you and the allottees of these plots".

2. The petition has been contested by the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was in possession of cabin No.301 and, therefore, this cabin should have been allocated to him. The action of the respondent No.1 in delegating statutory functions to respondent No.3 for allotment of plots is of no legal effect. The order of rejection passed on the representation of the petitioner is quite clear. The petitioner was in unauthorised occupation of the cabin and in order to help the petitioner and other unauthorised occupants the resolution was passed and the cabins were allotted in consultation with respondent No.3. The petitioner had no vested right to claim the same cabin which was in his unauthorised occupation. The concession was granted by respondents to the petitioner and others to accommodate all these persons and that concession in no way entitles the petitioner to a declaration sought in the petition. The respondent No.3 was consulted by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 at the behest of the parties in occupation and the petitioner had accepted the same. The order was finally passed by the official respondents taking into consideration the entire facts. The respondent No.3 was consulted for the convenience of all the persons who were occupying the cabins without any lawful authority. There was no breach of any law which calls for interference by this Court in this constitutional petition.

The petition has no force and it is hereby dismissed summarily.

H.B.T. 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.