2006 PLP 688 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.

This petition has been filed against judgment dated 12-3-2001 of the Lahore High Court.

2. Precisely stated, facts of the case are that respondents instituted a suit in representative capacity on 4-12-1972, inter alia, on the averments that a piece of land entering into Khasra No.1556 measuring 1 Kauai, 11 Marlas situated within the Municipal limits of Chakwal is owned by the owners of the Deh being Shamlat property meant for the benefit of the owners of the Deh and the petitioners-defendants unauthorisedly has utilized the same for the purpose of raising construction on the plot. Suit vas contested by the petitioners. Civil Judge, Chakwal, on 6-6-1984 dismissed the suit. However, in appeal, learned Additional District Judge, Chakwal vide judgment/decree dated 1-12-1987 set aside the judgment/decree of the trial Court and decreed the suit. Petitioner filed a revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment dated 12-3-2001.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that, as the plot in question was situated in front of the office of' the Municipal Committee, therefore, with a view to generate income for the committee shops were constructed on it. Thus, after completion of the construction, the suit filed by the respondents has become incompetent, therefore, learned appellate and revisional Court should not have granted relief as prayed for by the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for ceveator contended that disputed plot, on which construction has been raised by the petitioner, is owned by the owners of the Deh being Shamlat meant for the benefit to the general public, therefore, petitioner had no right to convert the same for commercial purposes. The findings recorded are in consonance with admitted facts and law, therefore, being unexceptionable, do not call for any interference, as such petition for leave to appeal be dismissed.

5. We have heard parties' counsel and gone through the impugned judgments as well as other material available on record carefully. There is no dispute that the plot in dispute vests in the occupants of the Deh being Shamlat, therefore, Municipal Committee had no right of whatsoever nature to utilize the same except for the purpose for which it was reserved and if it wanted to utilize the same for any other purpose, permission of the occupants of Deh was mandatory, as such, the appellate as well as the revisional Courts have rightly held that the Municipal Committee, without authorization, could have not converted amenity plot for commercial purposes. The findings of fact of both the Courts are based on correct appreciation of law and facts, thus, leaving no scope for this Court to interfere in the impugned judgment.

6. As far as the objection of the learned counsel regarding the competency of the suit after completion of construction is concerned, suffice it to observe that the Courts are not precluded from moulding the relief in view of the changed facts and circumstances of a case to shorten the litigation between the parties as it has been held in Amina Begun v. Ghulam Dastgir PLD 1978 SC 220.

7. Since the Municipal Committee has acted contrary to the provisions of law and utilized amenity plot for commercial purposes without any justification, therefore, we are not inclined to interfere in the impugned judgment in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan.

8. Thus, for the foregoing reasons petition is dismissed and leave declined. S.A.K./M-254/SC?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.