Illegal possession

2021 PLD 169 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Rr. 134, 152, 172 & 175-ACapital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960), S.12Illegal possessionAmenity and public utility plotsRestoring status of plots

Petitioner alleged that allotments made to advocates by Islamabad District Bar in playground or elsewhere were without lawful authority and jurisdiction and sought restoring the status of amenity plots

Validity

Allotments made to advocates by Islamabad District Bar in playground or elsewhere without lawful authority and jurisdiction

Office bearers of District Bar were exposed who were involved in such illegal acts to disciplinary proceedings for misconduct

Enrolled advocates who accepted such illegal allotments had also no lawful justification to construct chambers on State land

High Court declared purported allotments made by Islamabad District Bar in playground as illegal, void and without jurisdiction and authority

Encroachments on any State land and any construction thereon in violation of Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and rules or regulations made thereunder were illegal, void and liable to be removed

Any advocate who took law into his or her own hands or had violated law in any manner whatsoever was not eligible to be certified by High Court as 'fit and proper' to plead and appear before Supreme Court

Any enrolled advocate who volunteered to take law in his/her own hands could not be certified as having 'character and conduct' for the purposes of being enrolled as an advocate of High Court

High Court directed members of Bar to clear illegal construction and restore playground for public use as small fraction of total number of members of Islamabad District Bar were beneficiaries of illegal construction of chambers

High Court further directed Federal Government and Capital Development Authority to restore the playground for use of public in case the same was not restored within specified time

High Court also directed Federal Government to enquire into inaction of public functionaries and to proceed against those officials who were responsible for depriving general public from exercising constitutionally guaranteed rights

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2018 PCrLJ 1341 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 4Illegal possessionAppreciation of evidenceComplainant had alleged that he was absolute and exclusive owner of the suit property being purchaser of the sameComplaint against the appellants, was allowed by the Trial Court and appellants were convictedValidityRecord showed that area of land from where the complainant claimed to have been dispossessed was not identified

No independent witness was examined who could have testified that the complainant party was in possession of the land on the date of alleged dispossession

Circumstances established that the complainant could not prove that offence under Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 was committed by the accused-appellants

Appeal was allowed and appellants were acquitted in circumstances.

2018 PCrLJ 1341 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 3 & 4Illegal possessionOwnership of disputed propertyDetermination

Question of ownership could not be decided in the proceedings initiated under the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005.

2013 YLR 1713 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent

S.44Writ petitionMaintainabilityIllegal possessionScope

Illegal possession upon land, would not confer right in a person, writ petition could not be maintained for retention of ill-gotten gain.

2013 YLR 2500 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Suit for declaration and injunctionIllegal possessionTrespasser, right ofConcurrent findings of fact by two Courts below

Plaintiff filed suit on the basis of possession over land owned by government, whereupon he had raised construction of boundary wall

Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiff

Validity

Neither illegal possession conferred any title nor illegal construction created and bestowed ownership to a trespasser, much less against government

Neither illegal occupation could be justified nor the Courts were meant to perpetuate illegal acts

Such act, called for punitive action against the wrong doers and delinquent officials of Local Administration of concerned area who blind folded their eyes when such illegal and unauthorized constructions were carried out by plaintiff

Concurrent findings of facts by two Courts below which normally could not be disturbed unless it was proved that the same were result of misreading and non-reading of evidence

Both the Courts below after proper appraisal of evidence and attending all aspects of the case passed reasoned judgments and decrees and the same did not suffer from any illegality, irregularity, perversity or impropriety, hence not open to any exception

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 CLC 1865 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

S. 54West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.172Suit for injunctionIllegal possessionRevenue officers, performance of dutiesConcurrent findings of facts by the Courts below

Plaintiff claimed his possession over suit land and sought injunction against owners of land from entering into their land and against revenue authorities from performing their lawful duties

Both the Courts below concurrently dismissed suit and appeal filed by plaintiff

Validity

Revenue officer could not be stopped from performing his legal obligation and suit filed by plaintiff was hit by provisions of S.172 of West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967

By abolition of Art.144 and S.28 of Limitation Act, 1908, encroacher or trespasser could not have laid a claim on the basis of illegal possession and suit filed by plaintiff was not competent and appeal was rightly dismissed by Lower Appellate Court

Plaintiff could not seek declaration against defendants as revenue record had confirmed the fact that they were in possession and were joint owners, therefore, they had rightly requested competent Revenue officer for demarcation

Owner could not permanently be restrained from entering the premises, ownership whereof vested in him

No misreading or non-reading of evidence nor any defect in judgments and decrees rendered by two Courts below were found on proper appraisal of material on records

High Court, therefore, declined to interfere as there was no impropriety, perversity, irregularity or infirmity in judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.