Syed MEHDI HASNAIN vs MUHAMMAD AYUB AND Another
This matter originated as a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that set aside an executive order issued by the District Magistrate, Karachi. The District Magistrate had ordered the eviction of the respondent from a property in Serai Quarter, Karachi, which the petitioner claimed to own through purchase from a transferee of the Rehabilitation and Settlement Department. The High Court, finding the District Magistrate's eviction order lacked legal sanction and validity, set it aside and directed the restoration of possession to the respondent. Before the Supreme Court, it was confirmed that the respondent had already been restored to possession pursuant to the High Court's order. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the petition had become infructuous and dismissed it. The Court clarified that the High Court's order, which focused solely on the illegality of the summary eviction, did not prejudice the petitioner's underlying property rights. The Court affirmed that such rights remain subject to adjudication and establishment through appropriate proceedings in the civil courts, rather than through summary executive action.
- Can a District Magistrate summarily evict a person from property without legal sanction?
- Does a High Court order restoring possession to a person evicted by an illegal executive order prejudice the underlying title claims of the petitioner?
- Is a petition rendered infructuous if the relief granted by the High Court has already been executed?
1. SAJJAD AHMAD, J.-The petitioner claims to be the owner of the disputed property (Plot No. 6/4 and 6/5-S. R. 5, with an incomplete building thereon, situated in Serai Quarter, Grant Road, Karachi) along with his two brothers and a sister by purchase from one., Nawabzada Ali Zaheer Khan to whom it was transferred permanently by the Rehabilitation and Settlement Department. The respondent No. 1 who was in its possession allegedly as a squatter, was evicted there from by the police under the orders of the District Magistrate, Karachi, on the 1st of September 1969. The respondent challenged this order-- by a writ petition in the High Court which was accepted as neither the respondent's counsel nor the Additional Advocate-General who appeared for the District Magistrate found it possible to defend the executive order of the District Magistrate which plainly lacked legal sanction and validity. The learned Judges of the Division Bench while setting aside the impugned order of the District Magistrate also directed that the respondent be restored to possession of the premises in order to rectify the wrong that had been done to him.
2. It is stated at the Bar that the respondent has already been put into possession of the disputed property in terms of the High Court's order. This petition is, consequently, rendered in fructuous and is dismissed as such. However, we would likely to observe that the High Court's order under challenge does not take away and will not prejudice, in any manner, any right that the petitioner may possess in the disputed property and which he may be able to establish in the civil Courts.