1990 PLP 857 (CLC)

2. This is Constitution petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. It is urged by Mr. Shah that the petitioners are in occupation of the land in question from 9th July 1971, and therefore, are entitled to a lease under paragraph 3 of Scheme for the Management and Disposal of Urban Evacuee Trust Properties, 1977, approved by the Ministry of Social Welfare, Local Government and Rural Development. Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, and published by the Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan, Lahore. Paragraph 3 reads as under:‑‑ "3. (i) Every tenant who is placed in possession of a property shall execute and sign a written agreement of tenancy with the Board, on the terms and conditions to be prescribed by the Chairman. (ii) The existing occupant/occupant of a property may be treated as tenant provided:‑ (a) He/She is in actual physical possession since before the 9th July, 1971. (b) He/She clears all arrears of rent and other dues if any, as assessed by the Board as from the first April, 1960, or the date of physical occupation whichever is later. (iii) Change of tenancy may be allowed by District Officer on the following terms and conditions:‑ (a) Execution of Tenancy Agreement by the new occupant: (b) Payment of transfer fee to the extent of six months rent or Rs. 500 which ever is higher." We called upon the learned counsel by order dated 30‑1‑1989 to place on record the documents in proof of possession of plot. He has now produced photostat copies of four documents. First document appears to be a Character Certificate issued by Liquat National Hospital dated 5th December, 1987 to petitioner No.1. There seems to be addition of the words "Deh‑Gujro, Tappo Songal, near Gulshan‑e‑Iqbal Karachi" in the first paragraph of the certificate. The second is a notice issued to the petitioner No.1 by a company. It is shown as issued to petitioner No.1 but it seems that the name of the petitioner has been typed afterwards as the letters "S/o Mohammad Adam Ali" appear to have been typed on two different occasions, because typing line is not straight. There is another letter issued by the same Company to Petitioner No.3 which is dated 30‑10‑1972 and the last one appears to be a certificate in favour of petitioner No. 3 which is dated 21st June; 1972. What is required under paragraph 3 of the Scheme quoted above, is that .the petitioners ought to show that they have been in possession of the property) prior to 9th July 1971 and that all arrears of rent and other dues as assessed by JA the Board as from Ist April, 1960 are cleared. From the documents produced, it appears that none of the prerequisites mentioned in the said paragraph have been fulfilled by the petitioner. Had the petitioners been in possession of the plot in question, prior to July 1971, they could have produced ration cards, identity cards or voters' list or the posts received by them at the said address. Learned counsel for the petitioners took a plea that the auction of the plot in favour of respondents Nos.2 and 3 made by respondent No.1 is illegal. We are afraid, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, this plea is not available to the petitioners as they have failed to establish, even prima facie, their B right to claim a lease from the respondent No.1 in respect of the said plot. In fact, they have no locus standi to raise this plea. For the above‑said reasons, the petition is dismissed in limine.

3. In view of the order passed on the main petition, this application for stay stands dismissed, as infructuous. M.Y.H./A‑630/K Petition dismissed.