1988 PLP 1525 (CLC)

Date of hearing: 6th April, 1988. This revision petition by Muhammad Younas is directed against the order of the Additional District Judge, Lahore, dated 13th of July, 1987 whereby his appeal from an order passed by the Civil Judge, Lahore on 23rd of November, 1986 dismissing his application for the grant of an ad interim injunction was dismissed.

2. The dispute between the parties pertains to Quarter No.834/2, P.N.G. Colony, Pakistan Railways, Mughalpura, Lahore. This quarter was allotted to the petitioner who is working as an Upper Division Clerk in Grade4.in‑the Pakistan, Railways, vide DEN/W/MGPR Notice No .717- W/1‑50, dated 28th ;,of., August, 1986. In pursuance of the allotment, the petitioner got possession of the quarter on 9th of September, 1986; as intimated in the Employee Status Change Report. On 5th of November, 1986, however, by another notice the Divisional Engineer, Work‑Shops, Pakistan Railways, Mughalpura, in supersession of the earlier notice dated 28th of August, 1986, allotted the quarter in dispute to Abid Hussain, respondent No.4, who is working as Moawan in Grade‑I in the Pakistan Railways. The petitioner was allotted quarter No.295/8, Watch and‑Weird Colony, Nlughalpura in lieu of the quarter in dispute. 3. . Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner instituted a suit assailing the notice dated 5th of November, 1986 on the ground that it was not only illegal but.‑also unjust:

4. Alongwith the‑.suit, the petitioner filed an application for a temporary injunction resting the respondents from interfering with his possession till the disposal of the suit. The application was opposed by the respondents contending that the impugned notice was proper and that under` ‑Section 10 of the Federal Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965, the jurisdiction of the Civil Court to issue‑a temporary injunction in the matter was barred.

5. The learned Civil Judge vide his order dated 23rd of November, 1986, dismissed the application. This order was upheld by the learned Appellate Court vide its order dated 13th July, 1987, impugned in this revision petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. The contentions which have been pressed into service on behalf of the petitioner are that cancellation of the allotment of the quarter in dispute from his name is ultra vires inasmuch as he was neither given a notice nor provided with an opportunity of being heard and that he being in Grade‑7, is entitled to retain the quarter in dispute which consists of two rooms instead of the quarter allotted to him in lieu thereof which comprises only one room. According to him, one room quarter is meant for officials who are in Grade‑I only.

7. These contentions have not been controverted on behalf of the respondents. The only plea raised by learned counsel for the respondents is that as provided in section 10 of the Federal Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965, the Civil Court is debarred from granting a temporary injunction as prayed for by the petitioner. Section 10 is attracted only when possession of any Government land or building is being taken under section 3 or section 4 or section 5 of the Ordinance. The provisions of law contained in these sections are not strictly applicable to this case as the allotment of the quarter in dispute in the name of the petitioner has not been cancelled on any of the grounds mentioned therein. Besides, no action A under these sections is valid unless it is preceded by an opportunity of being heard and a notice to the affected person. The assertion of the petitioner that the legal formalities as envisaged by law were not observed before the allotment of the quarter was cancelled from his name, does not ex facie appear to be without substance. Anyhow, this controversy shall be resolved by the learned trial Court on appraisal of the evidence which will be adduced by the parties on merits.

8. For the foregoing reasons: it is apparent that' the petitioner possesses a prima facie case and in case he .is dispossessed' from the quarter in dispute before formal Adjudication of the factual and legal controversies raised by him, he is likely to suffer an, irreparable loss. Balance of convenience also in the circumstances, peponderates in his favour.

9. In the result, I accept this ‑revision petition and setting aside the impugned order, issue a temporary injunction in favour of the petitioner restraining the respondents from interfering with his possession of the quarter in dispute till the disposal of the suit. The parties are left to bear their own costs. A.A. /M‑757/L Revision accepted.