1986 PLP 1431 (MLD)
Mst. AMEER FATIMA — Petitioner Versus KARACHI CANTONMENT BOARD and 5 others Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1431 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Mamoon Kazi, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. AMEER FATIMA — Petitioner Versus KARACHI CANTONMENT BOARD and 5 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Cantonments Act (II of 1924) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1431 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Cantonments Act (II of 1924) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1431 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Muhammad Zahoorul Haq and Mamoon Kazi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1431 (MLD) (Mst. AMEER FATIMA — Petitioner Versus KARACHI CANTONMENT BOARD and 5 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mubarak H. Siddique and Masood Shaharyar for Petitioner.
- Abdus Sattar and M.A. Qadri for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1986.
Headnotes / Summary
S.269--Licence--Breach of contract--Cancellation of licence- Requirements--Breach of conditions. pertaining to grant of licence to carry on business in a phop, held, would render cancellation of licence apart from other penalty--However, notice to licensee before such cancellation is prerequisite. (b) Cantonments Act (II of 1924)
5.269--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199--Allotment of shop- Claim for--Findings of fact--Constitutional jurisdiction--Exercise of- Petitioner failed to prove actual possession on cabin over which shop in dispute was constructed in spite of sufficient opportunity being given to him by Cantonment Board to prove such possession by producing relevant documents--Matter of possession being question of fact, High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction refused to interfere with findings of fact arrived at by Cantonment Board.
Judgment & Decree
2. The relevant facts are that the petitioner's husband had a cabin on Katrak Road which was demolished for construction of pucca shops in 1957 apd he was allowed to occupy a cabin on Sangster Road Nullah: Thereafter Shop No.7 was allotted to the son of the petitioner, namely, Masood Ahmed son of Muhammad Naqi. The petitioner is alleged to have continued occupying the cabin on Sangster Road. .
3. In 1982 the Cantonment Board again decided to construct certain shops and directed the removal of the cabin on Sangster Road.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that she has continued in occupation of the said cabin and has paid 'rent of the same to the Cantonment Board. On 22‑1‑1982 the Karachi Cantonment Board issued notice to Mst. Ameer Fatima as holder of Cabin No.6 to remove her cabin from Nullah and to pay the outstanding dues of Rs.1,
532. She was, however, given the option to obtain a cabin on hire from the board after the consruction. The petitioner is alleged to have paid Rs.607 to the Cantonment Board and she obtained, an identity card on 1‑1‑1983, as temporary occupier of a temporary cabin on Katrak Nullah which had since been demolished. It, however, appears that the respondents Nos. 4 and 5 had meanwhile interfered and they had sought the allotment of newly constructed Shop No.6 and the petitioner came to know of the same and, therefore, she wrote a letter on 27‑1‑1983 to the Cantonment Board asking that she had the right of getting the allotment of the new shop as she was in possession of the Cabin all along.
5. On 8‑2‑1983 the Cantonment Board directed the petitioner to appear on, 13‑2‑1983 with all relevant documents she possessed basing claim on abin No.6
6. The meeting of the Board was held where it was decided that Mst. Ameer Fatima not being found in possession of the cabin and respondents Nos. 4 and 5 having been found in possession of the cabin the new Shop No.6 should be allotted to respondents Nos. 4 and 5.
7. The petitioner felt aggrieved and, hence this petition.
8. Mr. Mubarak Hussain Siddiqui submitted that the petitioner has all along been in possession of the cabin and that it was her right to get the possession of Shop No.6 in lien of the Cabin. He relied upon section 269 of the Cantonment Act which allows the cancellation of a licence on breach of the conditions contained therein apart from the other penalty that the licensee incurs. However, there is a proviso to the said section which requires the Cantonment Board to issue notice to the licensee before cancelling the same. Mr. Mubarak has submitted that the petitioner's licence has been cancelled without opportunity having been granted to her to make out her case against the cancellation of the licence. The submission appears to be merely technical inasmuch as the letter of Cantonment Board, dated 8‑2‑1983 had clearly required the petitioner to produce all the documents before the board upon which she was basing her claim of Cabin No.6. The petitioner had herself written in her letter of 27‑1‑1983 where it was clearly indicated that Muhammad Rafiq was employed by her as shoe‑making business worker. She was, therefore, conscious of the opposition, which was given to her claim from the respondent and in that light she should have produced all the documents or all the evidence which she had in respect of her possession before the Cantonment Board. The petitioner did not appear herself before the board but sent her son Masood Ahmed who is already an allottee of Shop No.7.
9. We have seen the proceedings of the Cantonment Board produce by Mr. Abdul Sattar where the members of the Cantonment Board havI taken the view that nothing was shown to them which could establish that Mst. Ameer Fatima had been in actual possession of the cabin an, question.
10. That being the position and the matter of possession of the cabin, being a question of fact we do not find any justification t B interere in the findings of the Cantonment Board. It would have been a different position if the petitioner had not been issued a notice to prove her claim in respect of Cabin No.6 but, since she was given an opportunity to prove her claim and she has not been able to establish her claim to the complete satisfaction of the Cantonment Board it is not possible for us to interfere in the decision.
11. Consequently, this petition is dismissed. H.B.T. Petition dismissed.