Public Property

2022 CLC 556 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.2(0),3, 11, 13 & 14Public propertyEncroachment

Anti-Encroachment Tribunal ordered the occupation of the petitioner to be removed and directed the concerned official to demolish/remove the illegal construction on public property

Petitioner claimed entitlement on account that he was paying rent to the concerned Municipal Committee in the name of Pacca Piri; that he acquired electricity in the year 2000; that impugned order was non-speaking without jurisdiction; that petitioner being a grantee since 1965-66 through their predecessor paying the rent was not liable to be disturbed; that there was no complaint of encroachment by competent authority; that only government servant was empowered under S.3 of Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010

Question as to jurisdiction available to the tribunal open to be exercised by a private person under the Act, 2010

Validity

Management of the public property was duty of the concerned officials

Petitioner had approached the concerned officials, however, on failure of their action to the satisfaction of the petitioner the tribunal was approached after the approach to High Court by way of constitutional petition

Order passed by High Court did not confer jurisdiction on the tribunal

Tribunal itself was having jurisdiction on account of any failure present on part of the officials of government

Approaching to the tribunal by a private person was nowhere specifically barred/restricted in Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010

Duty casted upon by the government officials required them to exercise their powers as provided under Ss. 3 and 4 of the Act, 2010 and where such exercise is not indulged into by the officials respondents, the private person was not deprived to approach the subject tribunal under the said Act and it was for the tribunal to decide the dispute

Held, that tribunal under the Act, 2010, was empowered to decide the question of possession, its terms, variation thereof; and the availability of occupation which the government servant was required to manage

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2017 PLD 483 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Constitutional petitionPublic propertyIllegal billboards/hoardings on public property

Petitioner, sought to restrain Municipal Corporation from allowing respondents from placing/erecting signage on green-belts, which per contention of petitioner, were illegally allotted to the respondents

Validity

Subject green belts were public property and in view of orders of the Supreme Court in such regard, no signboard, billboard or advertisements could be allowed on said green belts

Respondents were advertising and purported allotments to them were illegal in view of the orders of the Supreme Court

Public property meant for use and enjoyment of general public could not be leased to any private or third party nor could any type of third party interest could be created therein

Government, relevant municipal authority and all such functionaries were duty bound to keep public property free from all types of encroachments and claims

High Court declared impugned allotments of the green belts as illegal and directed that the possession of the same shall be resumed forthwith by the respondents and furthermore, the respondents and authorities were jointly and severally directed to ensure that all signboards, billboards and advertisements were removed forthwith from the green belts and in future no such signage should be allowed thereon

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

1999 PLD 26 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Public PropertyDisposal ofNo public property, big or small, tangible or intangible, can be disposed of except in accordance with law

Functionaries who transgress, expose themselves to the severest or penalties under law, the cardinal principle being that the higher the functionary, the higher the responsibility and, for that reason, the stricter the punishment.