2005 PLP 1088 (SCMR)

Ch. Muhammad Saleem, Advocate Supreme Court with Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent. Zafar Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for Applicant. Date of hearing: 3rd March, 2003. TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.‑‑‑

Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 22‑10‑1999 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No.141 of 1.998 filed by the petitioners was dismissed maintaining the determinations of the two Courts below. The facts briefly narrated are that a notice was issued by petitioner No.2, Deputy Town Planner, Lahore Development Authority, to the respondent on 15‑7‑1985 calling upon her to stop illegal construction of shop on the plot bearing No.9‑C, Gulshan-e‑Ravi Scheme, Lahore. This notice was assailed by the respondent by filing a suit for permanent injunction on 18‑7‑1985. It was averred by the respondent that she was owner in possession of Plot No.41‑C, Khasra No.1136, Gulshan‑e‑Ravi Scheme, Lahore, and had raised construction after securing necessary sanction from the Lahore Municipal Corporation. Issues were framed and the parties led their evidence. The learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Lahore, decreed the above suit through his judgment, dated 24‑9‑1995. The petitioners filed an appeal assailing the aforesaid judgment of the trial Court, which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Lahore, vide his judgment, dated 9‑7‑1998. Civil Revision No.141 of 1998 filed by the petitioner before the Lahore High Court also met the same fate as it was dismissed by a learned Single Judge through his judgment dated 22‑10‑1999, impugned herein. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire documents appended with this petition. It is reflected from the perusal of the record that the notice was issued by the petitioners to the respondent on 15‑7‑1985 to the effect that an illegal construction had been raised on Plot No. 9‑C, However, the evidence brought on record by the partie, totally belies this stance. Even the evidence brought by the petitioners themselves substantiates the case of the respondent The report of the Local Commissioner also fortifies this aspect that no construction, whatsoever was made by the respondent on Plot No.9‑C Furthermore, it is borne out from the documents annexed with the petition that the said construction was raised by the respondent prior to the establishment of Gulshan‑e‑Ravi Scheme after securing proper sanction. No evidence of encroachment whatsoever has been brought on record It would be appropriate to reproduce the determination of the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in this regard while dismissing the civil revision which is in the following terms:‑‑‑ "The oral and documentary evidence produced by respondent proved beyond doubt that she was owner of the plot in issue, she had raised construction at the relevant time after getting due sanction from Municipal Corporation, the construction was in accordance with plan, the construction existed since 1975 and according to the policy the property was adjusted in Gulshan‑e- Ravi Scheme. Only objection of the petitioner was that there was encroachment in Plot No.9‑C but the witnesses of the petitioner themselves admitted that the property was in Plot No.9‑C which opened towards Plot No.9‑C. This being so the plea raised by the petitioner stood contradicted and was belied The construction which was raised according to the sanctioned plan and was also proved to be in existence since 1975 as per report of Local Commission and evidence on record would be deemed to have been adjusted in scheme of petitioner in terms of policy and this is not the case that the adjustment in the scheme was not permissible. The main objection of encroachment in Plot No.9‑C, having been proved to be without any foundation in view of the evidence on record the petitioner could not be allowed to interfere in the old construction. " Learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to point out any illegality or legal infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the instant petition being without any merit is hereby dismissed and leave refused. C.M.A. No. 1890/L of 2002 for impleadment as party also stands dismissed. M.H./L‑36/S Petition dismissed.