LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs SIRAJ DIN and others

ORDER

1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave has been filed by the Lahore Development Authority as petitioner and is directed against judgment dated 19 October 1981 of Lahore High Court Lahore. The background is that the respondents had filed a suit for the grant of perpetual injunction restraining the petitioner from evicting them and demolishing their house No,E/2483, Suha Bazar Lahore in pursuance of action as contemplated in the notice under section 3(1) of the West Pakistan Autonomous Bodies Immovable Property (Ejectment of Unauthorised Occupants) Ordinance, 1965.

2. Before the Civil Judge the respondents produced documentary evidence to the effect that the property in question belonged to them and that they had made a construction thereon.

3. Furthermore they had been paying taxes in respect of the same even prior to the Partition. The trial Court dismissed their suit but on appeal the Additional District Judge Lahore set aside the order passed by the trial Court and decreed the suit of the respondents with costs. Against the judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge Lahore the petitioner filed civil revision in the Lahore High Court Lahore which was dismissed by learned Single Judge on the ground that the petitioner was unable to produce any notification made under the aforesaid Ordinance or even under the provisions of section 6(3) of the Punjab Development of Damaged Areas Act 1952 to show that the disputed property was acquired. Therefore there was no evidence to indicate that the said property of the respondents had in fact been included in some notification for acquisition and was duly acquired.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner before us relying on page 53 of the printed paper book showed us a site plan in order to establish that house No,E/2483 had been acquired under the aforesaid law. But this had also been placed before the learned Single Judge who had correctly remarked that instead of placing any specific notification the petitioner had referred to a large area without mentioning the -property in dispute specifically as acquired, and that the entire area measured more than 37 acres whereas the disputed area measured only 4 marlas. Besides that the Additional District Judge Lahore in his judgment at page 21 of the printed paper book had also given cogent reasons for accepting the appeal of the respondents. This judgment had been upheld by the High Court and in our view there is no flaw in the impugned judgment calling for interference in the circumstances of the case. The petition is therefore dismissed.