1986 PLP 1859 (SCMR)

MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment, dated 21st March, 1985, of the Sind High Court; whereby a Constitutional petition filed by the respondent side which had arisen out of an urban settlement matter, was allowed. The respondents Nos. l and 2 had purchased a big Mansion in auction. The property numbers, so purchased, were SR/2/11/2‑1 and

2. Question arose as to who were the statutory tenants in the said property. Riaz Ahmad predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was left out by counting nine tenancies. He filed a suit against the auction purchasers with the plea that he was also a statutory tenant and should be recognized as such. Subsequently, however, he did not pursue the suit and it was withdrawn. Later on he changed the position and tried to seek transfer of portion in his possession (numbered as G‑10) which allegedly he had built as a canteen. He also succeeded in getting a P.T.O. and P.T.D. in his favour. This was challenged by the earlier transferees i.e., respondents Nos. l and 2 in the High Court. In an elaborate judgment a learned Single Judge held that the portion in dispute was a part of the big mansion transferred to the respondents and that P.T.D. had been issued to them prior to the disputed transfer in favour of Riaz Ahmad. Other points urged before the High Court were also repelled by rendering findings of fact against Riaz Ahmad. Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and the transfer made in favour of Riaz Ahmad of the disputed portion was set aside as without lawful authority. Learned counsel for the petitioners in seeking leave to appeal has urged only one point; namely, that the original area of the big mansion was more than 1,600 yards, it was subsequently reduced at two stages and ultimately about 900 yards remained with the auction purchasers. He further stated that the area left with the auction purchasers and that taken out of their purchase was never demarcated. In these circumstances the remaining area should have been deemed to be available for transfer to the petitioners. And that being so, the High Court should have refrained from issuing writ in respondents favour. The argument at face seems attractive but in order to accept the same factual inquiry vis‑a‑vis the reduction of area and its causes will have to be made. This point was not urged before the High Court. Learned counsel for the caveator has argued against the raising of the new point at this late stage. After hearing the learned counsel, we are satisfied that no justification has been made out for allowing the petitioners to raise the new point at this stage. The other point urged before the High Court were resolved against the predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners. They have not been urged before us. There is no force in this petition. Leave to appeal accordingly, is refused. M . Y . H . Petition dismissed.