1992 PLP 1332 (MLD)

This civil revision is directed against the judgment, dated 12‑2‑1991, by which a learned Additional District Judge at Lahore, dismissed the appeal of the plaintiffs‑petitioners against the order, dated 26‑5‑1990, whereby a learned Civil Judge at Lahore had dismissed their application for temporary injunction arising out of a suit for permanent injunction brought by them against the defendants‑respondents.

2. The averments in the plaint of the suit brought by the plaintiffs petitioners are that they are allottees of various plots in katchi abadi near Railway Stadium in Garhi Shahu, Lahore, from Lahore Development Authority, to which they had paid costs of the plots as also development charges, but the Railway Administration (Respondent No.1); refusing to recognize their allotment, are threatening to demolish their structures (juggies) built on the plots. Hence the suit for permanent injunction seeking to restrain their opponents from interfering in their possession of the plots and from demolishing the structures built by them thereon.

3. Alongwith the plaint they moved an application under Order 39, rules 1 and 2, C.P.C. seeking temporary injunction against their opponents till the decision of the suit.

4. The defendants‑respondents' resisted the suit as also the application. The Railway Administration (respondents No.1 & 3) took up the position that the disputed land belonged to them and it had not been transferred to the Provincial Government, nor to the Lahore Development Authority (respondent No.2) for setting up katchi abadi for the plaintiffs‑petitioners and since they (petitioners) were trespassers over the Government land, they were liable to be dispossessed and the structures built by them were liable to be demolished.

5. Lahore Development Authority, (respondent No.2) in its pleadings explained that it had received costs of the land and development charges from the plaintiffs‑petitioners but no allotment order was issued in their favour, nor the Government of the Punjab had issued any notification for recognizing their structures as katchi abadi. It conceded that the disputed land belonged to Pakistan Railway which was a department of the Federal Government.

6. The learned trial Judge dismissed the stay application of the plaintiffs petitioners and the learned Additional District Judge their appeal. They have now invoked the revisional jurisdiction of this Court.

7. It is contended on behalf of the plaintiffs‑petitioners that on 7‑4‑1986 the Prime, Minister of Pakistan had announced the conferment of proprietary rights on juggy dwellers inhabiting katchi abadis and since they had been in occupation of about 53 dwellings, constituting a katchi abadi, they were entitled to obtain proprietary rights from the Government but the Railway Administration was not only denying their rights but also threatening their forcible dispossession. According to the learned counsel, plaintiffs‑petitioners had besides paying the price of the plots also paid the development charges to the Lahore Development Authority (respondent No.2).

8. With reference to a copy of the draft bill known as `Punjab Katchi Abadis Act, 1992' which the learned counsel for the plaintiffs‑petitioners has brought on the file, he submits that pursuant to the decision of the Federal Government, the Government of the Punjab has moved this bill and with the consent of the Federal Government, as contemplated by its Clause 8(2), the plaintiffs‑petitioners are likely to be given proprietary rights of the plots in their respective possessions because they have already paid their price as also the development charges to the Lahore Development Authority (respondent No.2) and in these circumstances this Court may issue temporary injunction restraining the defendants‑respondents No.1 and 3 from demolishing their structures (juggies) built over the disputed plots.

9. The learned Law Officer of Pakistan Railways, who has put in appearance on behalf of respondents Nos.1 and 3 in response to the pre admission notice, vehemently contests the revision. He contends that there has been a controversy between the Pakistan Railways representing the Federal Government and the Government of the Punjab with regard to the disputed plot, which form part of a chunk of land situated in the immediate vicinity of Railway track, near Ghari Shahu, Lahore about its utilization for the purpose of setting up Katchi Abadi for the plaintiffs‑petitioners and it has ultimately been decided that in view of the security risk and other considerations; it is not possible for the Railway Administration to transfer this land to the Provincial Government for setting up katchi abadi and the proposed legislation is not going to advance the matter in their favour.

10. The learned counsel representing Lahore Development Authority submits that the price of the plots and the development charges were received by the Lahore Development Authority from the plaintiffs‑petitioners but it was all subject to the consent of the Railway Administration because the disputed land belongs to it. He has conceded that the Lahore Development Authority cannot proceed with the matter unless the Railway Administration agrees.

11. It is an admitted position that the disputed land belongs to the Railway Administration, which is a department of the Federal Government, and without its consent, the Provincial Government, even if the legislation on the anvil is ultimately passed by the Provincial Assembly, cannot utilize it for the purpose of katchi abadi in order to settle the plaintiffs‑petitioners thereon. The Railway Administration, as it appears from the minutes of the recent meeting, copy of which has been placed on the. record by the learned Law Officer of Pakistan Railways, seems to be adamant in declining its consent for the utilization of the disputed land for setting up katchi abadis. This being so, there is no prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs‑petitioners and the civil revision, which is formally admitted to regular hearing, is dismissed. A.A./M‑237/L Revision dismissed.