Removal of encroachment

2026 MLD 678 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 4 & 5Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42Removal of encroachmentDeclaration of titleFraud

Petitioner / plaintiff was aggrieved of dismissal of his suit by respondent / Anti-Encroachment Tribunal against recovery of possession of suit property as encroachment

Validity

Petitioner / plaintiff did not prove any legal title or character in the property

Plaintiff under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 must establish a legal character or right to property to maintain a declaratory suit

Petitioner / plaintiff lacked registered instrument or sanctioned mutation and had no such legal character

Bare declaration, under proviso to S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was barred when further relief could be sought

Petitioner / plaintiff could have sought specific performance against his vendors or approached the competent authority for regularization but instead sought a negative declaration against statutory authorities, which was not maintainable

Fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings

Reliance on fabricated and forged allotment orders was itself sufficient to non-suit the petitioner / plaintiff

Courts could not lend their discretionary jurisdiction to a party which had based its case on forged documents

High Court declined to interfere in the order of Anti Encroachment Tribunal, which had carefully examined the material, applied correct principles of law, and dismissed the suit, as there was no illegality, misreading or non-reading of evidence in the judgment

Petitioner / plaintiff sought a declaration of ownership without any valid instrument, mutation or sanction from the Board and had relied on inadmissible photocopies and unregistered agreements lacking witnesses

Petitioner / plaintiff failed to rebut the record of authorities marking his documents as fake

Petitioner / plaintiff leveled scandalous allegations of bribery without proof and obstructed lawful anti-encroachment operations

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2025 PLD 227 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Ss. (2)(h) & 3Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54Co-sharerPossession over excess landRemoval of encroachmentProvincial Government issued notice to respondents/plaintiffs for removal of encroachment on government landSuit filed by respondents/plaintiffs was decreed in their favour and the notice was set asideValidityProvincial Government despite being owner of 441 Kanal 9 Marla land was not in possessionSuit land was joint property in record and no official partition had taken place by meets and boundsCo-owner in possession of an excess area than his entitlement could not be evicted except in due course of lawPossession of one co-owner/co-sharer was considered to be possession of all co-sharersOnly course that could be adopted to oust co-sharer from excess area in his possession was to seek partition of land

Though respondents/plaintiffs were in possession of land in excess of their entitlement but they were not illegal occupants within the meaning of S. 2(h) of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977

Such co-owner could not be served with notice under S. 3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977

Respondents/plaintiffs were holding suit property not as encroachers but as co-owners/co-sharers and they could only be evicted from suit property/excess land by approaching competent forum for partition

Trial Court had rightly set aside notice under S. 3 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1977 as the same was illegal and void ab-initio

High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court as Provincial Government failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, misreading or non-reading of evidence

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2014 YLR 1331 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3, 4, 8 & 14Penal Code (XLV of 1860), S.34Encroachment on public propertyRemoval of encroachmentProcedure and power of the TribunalCommon intentionAppreciation of evidence

Neither the judicial procedure prescribed under S.14 nor provisions of Ss.3 & 4 of Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010 had been followed in letter and spirit

Universal principle of law i.e. 'audi alteram partem' had been violated in such a manner that proper opportunity of hearing had not been provided to accused persons by deciding the case in summary manner, in violation of administration of justice and equity

Impugned judgment whereby accused were convicted and sentenced, could not be sustained under the law, which was against the judicial norms

Law involved in the present case, did not allow the speedy disposition of controversy without adopting the necessary steps of procedure as enunciated in the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010

Said statute nowhere prescribed summary plan or procedure to expedite the trial, hurriedly

Prosecution to establish its case had neither found inhabitant of the locality, nor any other private person as witness

Legal right of accused persons, safeguarded and respected by the Constitution, had not been afforded in its true spirit

Trial had not been conducted and concluded in a fair and transparent manner, in which the truth could be received and given credence

Conviction of accused persons recorded by the Tribunal, was set aside in circumstances.

2014 CLC 1730 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Arts. 199, 9, 23 & 24Constitutional jurisdictionScopeRemoval of encroachmentAdequate remedyControversial questions of factsScopeRespondent had filed civil suit with regard to land in question which had been claimed by the petitionerPetitioner had not mentioned as to when he was dispossessed form the disputed land

Petitioner had a adequate remedy if he was dispossessed other than due course of law under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 which had provided a complete mechanism against wrong doer

Party might invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of High Court for enforcement of his right if no adequate remedy was available

Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court could not be invoked if an adequate remedy was available under the relevant law

Party complaining of breach of statute must first avail the remedy provided by the statue for such breach before he applied for order in the nature of constitutional jurisdiction

Controversial question of facts were involved in the present case which could not be resolved by invocation of constitutional jurisdiction

Controversial questions of facts could not be resolved by the High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction

Constitutional petition being not maintainable was dismissed, however petitioner could seek his remedy available to him by adopting other mode of proceedings if so advised.

2011 MLD 104 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

R. 3Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionRemoval of encroachment

Petitioners had impugned the notice for removal of encroachment issued by the National Highway Authority whereby it was mentioned that the petitioner had made encroachment within the right of way

Only controversy before the High Court was, whether the impugned construction was within the restricted limit or not

Construction in question apparently did not fall within the restricted limit

Impugned notice issued by the authorities was uncorroborated under the facts and circumstances as the subject property did not fall within the prescribed limits/boundaries in terms of R.3 of National Highway and Strategic Road (Control) Rules, 1998; however that would not in any manner create any right, title or otherwise in the petitioners in respect of subject property and could be subjected to action by the relevant authorities under the relevant law in that regard

Impugned notice, was cancelled by High Court.