2000 PLP 779 (MLD)

S.A. RABBANI, J.‑‑‑The dispute brought before the Court through this petition relates to rights in a four acres piece of land at Ibrahim Hyderi, District Karachi East. Petitioner claims that lease rights in the plot have been granted to her by the concerned Revenue Authorities. 2. The Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Korangi Creek, respondent No.5, claimed that the land in dispute belongs to the Cantonment and is reserved for graveyard. The staff of the respondent No.5 visited the site and affixed sign boards of graveyard and demolished rooms constructed by the petitioner there. 3. This petition was, therefore, filed for a declaration that "respondent. Nos 4 and 5 have no jurisdiction to either trespass upon the aforesaid land belonging to the petitioner, or demolish the construction over the said plot raised by the petitioner, or to affix sign boards notifying that the said land has been converted into a graveyard... ". 4. A direction by the Court to respondents Nos.4 and 5 has also been sought that they "should refrain from doing anything they are not permitted by law to do, and to do only those things which they are required by law to do". 5. Mr. Nadeem Akhtar, learned counsel for the petitioner, attempted to prove that the petitioner has lease rights in the plot in dispute, for which purpose he referred to various documents and narrated the facts relating to the stages of the process of acquisition of this lease. 6. Mr. Naeern‑ur‑Rehman, learned counsel appearing for the Cantonment Board, submitted that land in dispute falls within the Korangi Creek Cantt. Area and it is reserved for graveyard, and it could not be leased out by the Revenue Authorities. 7. A matter involving such disputed facts and disputed title cannot be a subject‑matter of a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution and such disputes cannot be resolved in these proceedings. The rights of the petitioner in the plot are being disputed by the Cantonment Board. Such disputes can only be adjudicated upon and resolved by civil Court in civil suits on the basis of evidence. 8. The petitioner, the these circumstances, needs a declaration of her rights in the plot, and not a declaration that "respondents have no jurisdiction to trespass upon the land belonging to her". A "trespass" does not need any "jurisdiction" and there can be no case where somebody has a "jurisdiction" to "trespass" others' property. 9. The direction sought in the prayer clause is also unnecessary because, even in the absence of any specific direction, everyone is expected to refrain from doing things not permitted by law and to do what is required by law. This is the basic requirement of the legal system. 10. We regret that such a petition has been argued after more than five years and now we have to inform the petitioner that the remedy for her grievance lies before the civil Court by way of a civil suit for declaration of her rights and the consequential relief. The petition is not maintainable as the law provides an adequate remedy. Petition is dismissed alongwith listed applications. No order as to costs in the circumstances. Q.M.H./I‑2/K? Petition dismissed.