P L D 1959 (W (PLP)

CONSTANTINE, C J.‑This is a summary appeal against the order of our learned brother Inamullah, J. discharging an ad interim injunction and dismissing an application for an interim injunction tiled by the plaintiff. We have also before us an application for an interim injunction pending appeal of which notice has been issued. The plaintiffs are fifty in number and allege they have been in possession of hutments and other structures and that the defendant Sui Gas Transmission Co. Ltd., have started demolishing their houses and structures in order, to lay a pipe line. It is common ground that the Collector is an authorised officer under the Land Control (Capital of the Federation) Act 1952, Act XI of 1952, and that he issued an order to the Resident Magistrate Karachi, directing him to remove all unauthorised huts along the central pipe line of the Sui Gas after providing alternate accommodation to those unauthorised refugees. It is also common ground that the Resident Magistrate is not an authorised officer under the Act. Section 11 of the Act provides that the authorised officer may by notice served in the prescribed manner direct any person unauthorisedly occupying or wrongfully in possession of any land A or building in the controlled area to vacate such land or building within the period mentioned therein, and that if the person does not in pursuance of the notice issued under subsection (1) vacate the land, he shall be liable to be summarily ejected therefrom by the authorised officer. It is the defendant's case that no notice was issued as is required by section 11 of the Act. The order of the Collector which we have referred to above states nothing regarding such a notice, nor is it contended by Mr. Beecheno that any notice was in fact issued to any of the defendants. Our learned brother Inamullah, J. discharged the ‑ad interim order on the ground that the Collector should have been made a party to the suit. We think, with great respect, that this was not correct. The allegations in the plaint are that the defendant- company is trespassing upon land in the possession of the plaintiffs. Whether the defendants are acting as principals or as agents for any other person, it is for them to justify their entry on land in the possession of other persons and it is not denied that this land was in the possession of the defendants. The Government of India Act by section 299 provides that no person shall be deprived of his property save by authority of law, and this is also a common law principle (Entich v. Barrington) which applies in this country. Whether the person who interferes with my possession is an officer of Government or a private individual he must justify interference with my possession. The defendants have attempted to justify the action of the Collector, but as we have pointed out the direction of the Collector even though he is an authorised officer under the Act is not sufficient if it is not preceded by the notice provided for in the Act. We therefore issue an interim injunction restraining the defendants and/or their agents, assignees, contractors and employees from demolishing the houses, hutments and other structures of the plaintiffs/appellants and laying down the pipe lines through the point at which the structures stand pending disposal of this appeal. Mr. Beecheno prayed for an early disposal of the appeal. We said that if he was ready to waive notice of the appeal we would hear it at once, but Mr. Beecheno was not ready to waive notice. We admit the appeal and direct notice. It will be open to the defendants if a valid notice is issued by the Collector to apply to this Court for discharge of the interim injunction. K. B. A. Appeal accepted.