Trespassing

2025 CLC 363 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.52 & 62(c)License/permit to extract limestoneExtension in permitObscurity in process of granting licenseNo public noticeContinued occupation of land without a valid permitTrespassing

Petitioner continued occupation of the land after expiry of extended period of license/permit by depositing challan/fee on his own without any authority by the respondents

Legality

Validity

Nothing on the record was found as to transparency of process of awarding the permit to extract limestone

It was the primary consideration of the petitioner that a notice ought to have been followed at the time of extending the period of permit/license

Petitioner had been paying challan/fees, on his own, without permission of the authority concerned and had applied for an extension of the license

Petitioner's occupation was illegal and his status was that of a trespasser under the Easements Act, 1882, as permission alone did not bestow any right under the law rather license/permit could have been cancelled even during its subsistence

High Court did not exercise its discretion in favour of the petitioners, who continued to occupy and enjoy the land as trespasser for the extraction of limestone

Occupation over the land was not transparent, thus, High Court ordered an inquiry into the actions of the officials responsible for issuing and renewing the license and also directed to retrieve the land from the trespasser

Constitutional petition was disposed of, in circumstances.

2016 PCrLJ 693 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 440 & 448Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 249-A, 265-K & 561-AQuashing of investigationTrespassing

Petitioner sought quashing of FIR on the ground that the same was false and concocted just to pressurize and blackmail him to withdraw civil suit filed by the complainant of the FIR

Validity

Investigation was yet to be completed and there was nothing floating on surface of record to prove that further proceedings in the matter would amount to shattering the safeguard of fundamental rights of petitioner guaranteed under the Constitution

Any order passed at such stage would amount to stifling police investigation and hampering the due process of law

Petitioner had alternate efficacious remedy in terms of Ss. 249-A & 265-K, Cr.P.C., which could be applied at the appropriate stages, even the same were applicable at the initial stages

All such disputed facts required recording of evidence which could only be seen by Trial Court at appropriate stage

No jurisdictional defect or violation of law existed to quash proceedings

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 YLR 450 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 302(b) & 302(c)Qatl-i-amdAppreciation of evidenceSentence, reduction inSudden provocationTrespassing

Deceased, on the day of occurrence, went to Ihata of father of accused as trespasser, where he showed unruly behaviour, which led to incident severing his lifeline

Deceased lost his life due to a fire shot made by accused but the circumstances whereunder he did so needed serious consideration

Stories narrated by both the sides were polluted with certain amount of exaggeration but court was not precluded from drawing its own independent result based on available record

Accused committed offence under compelling circumstances which over-whelmingly contributed to occurrence

High Court altered conviction of accused under S.302(b) to S.302(c), P.P.C. and reduced his sentence from imprisonment for life to rigorous imprisonment for fourteen years

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.