Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Civil Petition No. K‑63 of 1984, decided on 3rd May, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of Sind at Karachi, dated 28‑11‑1983 passed in Revision Application No. 118 of 1974).
‑‑Art. 185(3)‑‑Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 30‑‑Ejectment‑‑Petitioner claiming title of property in dispute‑‑Respondents' suit for possession against unauthorised occupant‑petitioner decreed‑‑Decision upheld in appeal and revision‑‑Plea that respondents having once served petitioner with notice under S.30 of Act (XXVIII of 1958), were estopped from denying tenancy rights of petitioner nor could treat him trespasser, repelled‑‑Property in dispute having been transferred as an open plot, S.30 which created statutory tenancy in favour of occupants of houses and shops transferred under Settlement Laws was of no avail to petitioner‑‑Besides petitioner never claimed to be tenant of respondents‑‑There could be no estoppel against statute.
‑‑‑There can be no estoppel against statute.
Ameer Ahmed Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 31st May, 1984.
Respondents are the transferees of a plot of land bearing C.S. No. 331, Block No. 56, measuring 4260 sq. ft. at Khippro Town, for which a P.T.D. was issued to them on 31‑3‑1965 under the Settlement Law. After the transfer the respondents served a notice upon the petitioner and one other as they were in joint occupation of the plot under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. As the petitioner did not respond to the notice, the respondents filed it suit in the civil Court for possession against the occupants on the plea that they were unauthorised occupants of the plot and were, therefore, liable to be ejected. The petitioner and the other occupant contested the suit denying the allegations that they were in unauthorised possession of the plot and claiming that the title in the property vested in them on the basis of a gift. The trial Court held against the petitioner and the other defendant that the property was originally evacuee property and was subsequently validly transferred in favour of the respondents. It was also held that the defendants were trespassers. Accordingly the trial Court passed a decree in favour of the respondents for possession of the disputed plot. The petitioner challenged‑the decree in appeal which was dismissed by the District Judge, Sanghar who affirmed the decree passed by the trial Court.
The petitioner then challenged the judgment of the District Judge, Sanghar in a revision before the High Court which was also dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Sind High Court vide judgment dated 28‑11‑1983.
In seeking leave to appeal from the aforesaid Judgment of the High Court the only ground urged by the learned counsel is that the respondents having once served the petitioner with a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 they are estopped from denying the tenancy rights of the petitioner and plead that she is a trespasser. However, as rightly held by the High Court, the property in dispute was transferred as an open plot to the respondents and as such section 30 which creates statutory tenancy in favour of occupants of houses and shops transferred under the Settlement Laws, plainly is of no avail to the petitioner. Besides the case of the petitioner and the other occupant was never that they were tenants of the Custodian in the property or on transfer, of the transferee. In view of this clear legal position the petitioner's possession was not protected under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. There is also no question of estoppel on the basis of notice served by the transferees in view of settled position in law that there can be no estoppel against statute. No other contention was advanced in support of the petition.
There is, therefore, no force in this petition which is accordingly dismissed.
M.I. Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer