1994 PLP 558 (MLD)
M/s. EASTERN CARPETS (PAK) LIMITED — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 558 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | M/s. EASTERN CARPETS (PAK) LIMITED — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 558 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 558 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 558 (MLD) (M/s. EASTERN CARPETS (PAK) LIMITED — Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Malik for Petitioners.
- Maqbool Elahi Malik, A.-G. with M. Iqbal Vehniwal, Syed Fayyaz Hussain Kadri, Abdul Sattar Chughtai, Pervez Alamgir and Azizur Rehman Baig for Respondents.
- Messrs Eastern Carpets (Pak) Limited, 19-A, Cooper Road, Lahore, through Dr. Saleem Hamid Malik, its Director have instituted this petition before this Court praying that the action of the respondents Province of Punjab through its Secretary, Agriculture and Muhammad Afzal Malik, Director -General, Agriculture Department, 21, David Road, Lahore, encroaching upon the public street bearing Khasra No.5091 situated at Davis Road, Lahore may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. It is requested that the encroachment so made by the respondents may be ordered to be removed forthwith in the interest of justice. -In other words, the case of the petitioner is that there exists a thoroughfare over the land in question and that the respondents have no authority to obstruct or interfere in the use of the said thoroughfare by the petitioner. The stand of the respondents is that there exists a passage and as such only the respondents are entitled to use and occupy it without any interference from any quarter. In order to know the factual position, a Commission consisting of three learned Members of the Bar was constituted. Learned Members of the Commission visited the spot in presence of the parties. They have placed on record a detailed report. The report of the Commission is that the passage in question is in fact a thoroughfare. The finding having been given by the learned Commission is based on documentary as well as oral evidence. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned Advocate-General has opposed this petition on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence available on record to demonstrate that the passage in dispute is a thoroughfare. He further says that the respondents are in its exclusive possession.
- 2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also read the whole record with utmost care. Annexure-B Massavi is undoubtedly a document of importance. According to this document, the passage is a thoroughfare. This documentary evidence was not disputed by the learned Advocate-General. The report of the Local Commission, and Mussavi coupled with other documentary evidence, namely Annexure-A, Site Plan, Annexure-C Report of the Revenue Authorities and Annexure-D, letter from Chief Corporation Officer, LMC would show beyond doubt that the disputed passage-was a thoroughfare. There is no evidence having been produced by the respondents to prove that the passage is not a thoroughfare. This being so, I do not feel any hesitation to declare the encroachment made by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 over the property in dispute without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The passage is accordingly declared to be a public thoroughfare. The encroachment shall have to be removed by the respondents. The petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Headnotes / Summary
S.42
Claim of plaintiff was that there existed a thoroughfare over land in question and that defendant had no authority to obstruct or interfere in use of said thoroughfare by plaintiff
Declaration was sought to the effect that action of defendant encroaching upon such public street be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect
Stand of defendant was that there existed a passage and only defendant was entitled to use and occupy same without any interference from any quarter
Report of Local Commission duly constituted and "Massavi" coupled with other documentary evidence namely, Site Plan, report of Revenue Authorities and letter from Chief Corporation Officer, showed beyond doubt that disputed passage was a thoroughfare
No evidence was produced by defendant to prove that passage was not a thoroughfare
Passage in dispute was declared to be a public thoroughfare and encroachment made by defendant over same was declared illegal.
Judgment & Decree
Messrs Eastern Carpets (Pak) Limited, 19-A, Cooper Road, Lahore, through Dr. Saleem Hamid Malik, its Director have instituted this petition before this Court praying that the action of the respondents Province of Punjab through its Secretary, Agriculture and Muhammad Afzal Malik, Director -General, Agriculture Department, 21, David Road, Lahore, encroaching upon the public street bearing Khasra No.5091 situated at Davis Road, Lahore may be declared without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. It is requested that the encroachment so made by the respondents may be ordered to be removed forthwith in the interest of justice. -In other words, the case of the petitioner is that there exists a thoroughfare over the land in question and that the respondents have no authority to obstruct or interfere in the use of the said thoroughfare by the petitioner. The stand of the respondents is that there exists a passage and as such only the respondents are entitled to use and occupy it without any interference from any quarter. In order to know the factual position, a Commission consisting of three learned Members of the Bar was constituted. Learned Members of the Commission visited the spot in presence of the parties. They have placed on record a detailed report. The report of the Commission is that the passage in question is in fact a thoroughfare. The finding having been given by the learned Commission is based on documentary as well as oral evidence. Mr. Maqbool Elahi Malik, learned Advocate-General has opposed this petition on the ground that there is no sufficient evidence available on record to demonstrate that the passage in dispute is a thoroughfare. He further says that the respondents are in its exclusive possession.
2. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length and have also read the whole record with utmost care. Annexure-B Massavi is undoubtedly a document of importance. According to this document, the passage is a thoroughfare. This documentary evidence was not disputed by the learned Advocate-General. The report of the Local Commission, and Mussavi coupled with other documentary evidence, namely Annexure-A, Site Plan, Annexure-C Report of the Revenue Authorities and Annexure-D, letter from Chief Corporation Officer, LMC would show beyond doubt that the disputed passage-was a thoroughfare. There is no evidence having been produced by the respondents to prove that the passage is not a thoroughfare. This being so, I do not feel any hesitation to declare the encroachment made by the respondents Nos.1 and 2 over the property in dispute without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The passage is accordingly declared to be a public thoroughfare. The encroachment shall have to be removed by the respondents. The petition succeeds and is allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./E-15/L Petition allowed.