ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI

C.P. No.D-5485 of 2015

 

    Date                                                    Order with signature of Judge

 

  1. For order on Misc. No.28949/2015 (U/A)
  2. For order on Misc. No.22671/2015 (Ex/A)
  3. For Katcha Peshi.
  4. For order on Misc. No.22672/2015 (Stay/A)

 

----

14.09.2015.

 

            Mr. S. Shah Hussain Shah Tirmizi, Advocate for the petitioner.

 

----

1.         Urgency granted.

2.         Exemption is granted subject to all just exceptions.

3.         The instant Constitutional Petition has been filed with the following prayers:

1.      To order the respondents No.1 to 6, not to dismantle the demised premises bearing House No.F-34, Near Zinda Peer Mazar, Kalapul Karachi without amicable settlement with the petitioner or making alternative arrangements for his abode without due course of law. More so, the request of the petitioner and his deceased father even which was being agitated for the last more than sixty years be finalized and the land be allotted to the petitioner for opening firewood stall to facilitate the lifelong needs of wood of the people living in the area as well as the families of the railway employees even, who have been also struggling for the last sixty years along with the petitioner.

 

2.      To restrain the respondents, their managers, agents, associates, employees, workers and persons working for them and on their behalf not to evict, dispossess from the house bearing No.F-34, Near Zinda Peer Mazar, Kalapul, Karachi, without due course of law till the decision of this petition.

 

3.      Any other relief or reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.

 

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that it is claimed that the petitioner’s father was an occupier of House No.F-34, Near Zinda Peer Mazar, Railway Colony, Karachi Cantt. and after his death the petitioner and other family members are residing in the said house. The petitioner’s father moved some applications to the respondents for giving him the permission to run a firewood stall and after his death, it is claimed by the petitioner that the said firewood stall may be leased in his name. It is stated that the case of the petitioner was recommended by the Ministry of Railways to grant him lease but the official respondents are now bent upon to dismantle the said stall by seriously prejudicing the petitioner. It is stated that a number of applications were given by the petitioner to the respondents which though were considered but lease was not issued in his name and hence thereafter when left with no alternative the instant petition has been filed.

 

            Mr. S. Shah Hussain Shah Tirmizi Advocate has appeared on behalf of the petitioner and has reiterated the above facts and submitted that there is no firewood stall in the vicinity and if the petitioner is allowed to open the said stall, it will facilitate the people living in the vicinity and it will also help the petitioner and his family members to earn a living, since the said stall is the only source of earning of the petitioner. The learned counsel further requests that the respondents may be directed to issue lease in favour of the petitioner and not to dismantle the said stall.

 

            We have heard the learned counsel at some length and have also perused the record.

 

            We specifically asked a question from the learned counsel to show us any document whereby the said stall was opened after taking permission from the concerned authorities, to which the learned counsel candidly replied that there is no approval however submitted that a number of applications were given to the respondents in this regard and the case of the petitioner was also recommended by the Ministry of Railways for taking a lenient view. Attention of the learned counsel was invited to page -41 of the file wherein it has categorically been mentioned that the petitioner or his late father were in unauthorized occupation of the railway land. The learned counsel conceded that the petitioner does not have any legal permission to occupy the said  stall however submitted that the petitioner is occupying the said place since decades, hence, the respondents may be directed to lease the said stall in his favour.

 

Perusal of the documents available on record would reveal that a number of letters were written by the respondents to the petitioner that he is an unauthorized and illegal occupant of the said land and had directed him to vacate the same. Though the petitioner’s father and the petitioner made a number of requests to the respondents for granting them lease but equally true is the fact that not a single document is available with the petitioner to show any legal authority vesting in the petitioner or his late father with regard to ownership of the stall. Though on the record the matter of the petitioner was recommended by the then Minister for considering the case of the petitioner by taking a lenient view but the question is, does the Minister has the power to authorize any person, who is admittedly an illegal occupant, to occupy something unauthorizedly? We are sanguine that the answer to this question would be in negative.

 

It is also an admitted position that the petitioner at no point of time has been able to prove the occupation of the said stall through valid and legal documents and has always termed himself to be an occupier, meaning thereby that the petitioner’s father had occupied the land, opened a stall and thereafter applied for granting him a lease. It has categorically been stated in the letter dated 15.08.1987, written by the Divisional Superintendent (Pakistan Railways), that the land of which lease is being sought by the petitioner cannot be granted since the said land is being licensed out to retired railway employees, widows of deceased railway employees and disable retired railway persons only and the petitioner admittedly does not fall in any of the above categories.

 

In view of the above admitted facts, we have come to the conclusion that since the petitioner has no title document in his possession with regard to occupation of the said firewood stall, this matter pertains exclusively between the petitioner and the respondents and no interference in this regard could be made by this Court. This petition, therefore, stands dismissed in limine being devoid of merit along with the application listed at serial No.4.

 

 

JUDGE

 

 

JUDGE

 

Tahseen/PA