2014 PLP 1351 (SCMR)

IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, C.J.

The petitioner has challenged concurrent findings of the three Courts through this petition which has been filed against the judgment dated 9-10-2013 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Civil Revision No.918 of 2013.

2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have also perused the impugned judgment; concluding paragraph of the same is reproduced as under:-- "

6. For grant of temporary injunction during the pendency of suit petitioners-plaintiffs were required to prove that prima facie good arguable case, balance of convenience in their favour and in case stay is not granted they will face irreparable loss. Both the courts below found the petitioners not entitled for the grant of stay and the only point argued before this Court that without exercising powers under section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 the respondents are not entitled to issue notice for vacation of constructed residential quarters in question, I am afraid, the petitioners-plaintiffs cannot take refuge of section 32 of the Act ibid. First of all they are illegal occupants over the residential quarters constructed by the Irrigation Department in Canal Colony and not the land and further in a previous litigation they have no claim about the ownership of quarter in issue. There is even no record that any application moved by them for grant of proprietary rights is pending before Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore. In this view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in refusing the temporary injunction by both the courts below. I am unable to disagree the findings recorded by two Courts below. As such, no case for interference by this Court while exercising jurisdiction under section 115 of the C.P.C. has been made out. Consequently, this civil revision being devoid of merits is dismissed."

3. It is argued by the learned counsel that the petitioner had a 40 years possession over the land in question; therefore, he had been dispossessed in violation of section 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. We are not inclined because admittedly no document exists in favour of the petitioner to establish his claim to remain in occupation of the property in dispute. Learned counsel stated that an application has been moved before the Board of Revenue for the proprietary rights. We are not inclined because in our considered opinion this argument had not been advanced earlier at any stage and it was not the case of the petitioner in any manner. Contrary to it, it strengthens the plea of the respondent that the petitioner was an unauthorized occupant. We may add that the law lean towards persons who believe in the rule of law and not those who takes the law in their hands as happened in the instant case where the petitioner with no legal authority had occupied the premises in dispute. As far as the question that he was in possession for so many years is concerned, it can never be a ground for the purpose of proprietary rights. The petitioner has failed to establish his case in his favour. The learned High Court had rightly declined to exercise its revisional jurisdiction and maintained the orders of the Courts below, thus, we find no merit in this petition which is, therefore, dismissed and leave to appeal is declined. However if the petitioner has any claim for damages he is free to approach the competent forum for redressal of his grievance. MWA/F-6/SC Petition dismissed.