1988 PLP 1025 (CLC)

This is a petition against order dated 22‑3‑1987 passed by the Deputy Secretary (E.P.)/Notified Officer, under Section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, at Karachi in Appeal No.5 of 1969 dismissing the appeal filed by Mullah Yousaf and 13 others. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the parties were litigating in relation to tenement Nos. G‑4, G‑5, G‑16, G‑17 and G‑18 in Building No.T.L.2/11, Lid Bitter Road, Karachi. The matter had come up, inter alia, before this Court in Constitutional Petition No.325 of 1971, which was allowed and the case was remanded for re‑hearing of the appeal with the observations that the parties would be entitled to raise whatever pleas were open to them. After the above remand order the notified officer has passed the impugned order whereby he dismissed the appeal. The operative portion of the order inter alia, contained in para. 11 reads as follows: "I find that none of the appellants Nos.l to 15 have claimed to be in possession of being a candidate themselves at any time for the tenements Nos. G‑16, G‑17 and 18 in question. It is not understood as to what is their locus standi for bringing up this appeal. The appellants' allegation that the disputed tenements is open space attached and appurtenant to the said building has been turned down by me in the earlier part of the order as these were duly surveyed tenements duly entered in the E.P.R. and assessed to rent." The petitioners being aggrieved by the above order have filed the present petition. Mr. Manzoorul Haq learned counsel for the petitioners had candidly submitted that even at the stage of the aforesaid earlier writ petition the petitioners had given up their claim in respect of above survey Nos. G‑4 and G‑5 but contested the case in relation to the other three survey Nos. referred to hereinabove. In support of the above petition Mr. Manzoorul Haq learned counsel for the petitioners has urged as follows:‑ (i) That there were no Survey Nos. G‑16, G‑17 and G‑18 but factually they were part of the open space of the building. (ii) That in any case the area of the above survey Nos. could have been only 69 square yards and not 278 square yards. (iii) That the transfer of above survey Nos. on the basis of negotiations was illegal as building site. Adverting to the first submission, it may be observed that the Notified Officer has recorded a finding of fact to the effect that these three survey numbers were surveyed as evacuee property and A they were mentioned in the evacuee property Register and even the rent was assessed. The above finding of fact is based on some material referred to in the impugned order and, therefore, in Constitutions Petition this finding of fact cannot be interfered with. As regards the second submission of Mr. Manzoorul Haq that in any case the area of the above survey numbers should have been 69 square yards and not 278 square yards, it may be observed that according to him the total area of the building of the plot is 1261 square yards, whereas the built up area is 771 square yards and according to him the open area is 489 square yards leaving a balance of 69 square yards. It will suffice to observe that the case of the petitioners before the Notified Officer was that these survey numbers did not exist at all. The submission now made does not find any place in the impugned order. Apparently it was not urged as it would have been contrary to the basic plea taken by the petitioners. In any case, I. would not go into above disputed question of fact in this constitution petition. Reverting to the last submission, it will suffice to observe that the petitioners were admittedly not the applicants for the above survey numbers as pointed out by the Notified Officer. They have no locus standi to file the above petition. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine. H . B . T. /M‑372/ K Petition dismissed.