2009 PLP 301 (MLD)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

The petitioner is a Charge-Nurse and is claimant of D-Category Quarter; she having been denied the allotment of the quarter, filed a suit asserting that the respondent/Department be directed to allot her such quarter and that it should not be transferred to any other person. Along with the suit, an application for the grant of temporary injunction was also moved of the same effect. However, this application, when contested by the respondents, has been dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order, dated 31-7-2008. Appeal of the petitioner also failed on 9-9-2008.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner under the verbal orders of the Administration, during the pendency of the suit, has been put in possession of the Quarter No.6-D and now the respondents intended to dispossess her from the same.

3. When questioned, as to whether there is any written order in this regard, nothing has been placed on the record, whereas the version of respondents is that the quarter has been allotted to respondent No.3 on 23-1-2008, who at the relevant time, was at Serial No.1 of the entitlement list, whereas the petitioner was at serial No.15. Besides, no order ever has been passed authorizing the petitioner to take over the possession of the Quarter No.6-D, rather she in connivance with the earlier occupant of the quarter has illegally and unlawfully taken over the possession of the said quarter and therefore, an encroacher is not entitled to equitable relief.

4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the plaint, as also the application for the grant of temporary injunction filed by the petitioner along with the suit. It is not the case of the petitioner that she has been allotted or given the possession of any quarter of D-Class, rather her claim is that it should be allotted to her, rather than any other person. I am not convinced that under any valid authority, the respondent/administration has given the possession of the Quarter No.6-D to the petitioner and it seems that the petitioner has taken over the possession of the Quarter No.6-D, with the help of the earlier occupant and obviously, under the law, an encroacher cannot be protected. Had she been given the possession of the Quarter No.6-D under the order of administration, she would have straightaway withdrawn the suit apprising the Court that no cause of action is left, whereas on the contrary she has been throughout pursuing the matter and has been asking the interim relief of protecting her possession of Quarter No.6-D, which claim is beyond the scope of her own pleadings. Resultantly, I do not find any merits in this petition. Dismissed. However, any observation made in this order, shall not prejudice the petitioner at the trial. A. M.R. /S-122/L Petition dismissed.