MUSHRAF ALI vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others
This matter concerns two connected petitions for leave to appeal against orders of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revisions. The petitioners had originally filed suits for declaration and permanent injunction against the Province of Punjab, claiming ownership and possession of disputed property and challenging notices to vacate. The trial court found the petitioners were encroachers and trespassers on government land, yet paradoxically directed the respondents to transfer the excess areas to the petitioners. The appellate court upheld the findings of fact regarding the encroachment but set aside the trial court's direction to transfer the land. The High Court affirmed this decision in revision. The core legal question was whether the petitioners, having been established as trespassers on government land, were entitled to the transfer of such land or to injunctive relief. The Supreme Court held that as the petitioners were established trespassers, they lacked the locus standi to seek injunctive relief or claim ownership. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petitions, affirming that courts will not grant relief to those who are encroachers on state property.
- Does a trespasser on government land have the locus standi to seek a permanent injunction against the state?
- Can a court direct the transfer of government land to a party it has already determined to be an encroacher or trespasser?
ORDER
1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.--These two petitions are connected in the sense that they are directed against the orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby civil revisions of the petitioners were dismissed.
2. Since the same question arises in both these petitions these are being taken up together.
3. ' Briefly the facts are that the respective petitioners filed suits for declaration against the Province of Punjab etc. Respondents to the effect that they were owners in possession of the disputed property in each case and that the construction raised by them was part of the each property, and that the notice given by the respondent for vacating the same was illegal, void and ineffective and further that the respondents should be restrained through permanent injunction from interfering in their respective possession and demolishing the constructions raised. The trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that the petitioners were not the legal transferees in both the cases and that they were merely encroachers/trespassers of the excess areas and that also the constructions raised by them were illegal. Despite this finding the trial Court directed the respondents to transfer the excess areas to the respective petitioners as they had raised constructions thereon and were in possession of the same. On appeal of the respondents the findings of fact recorded by the trial Court were upheld whereas the directions passed regarding transfer of the excess areas to the petitioners by way of sale etc. Were set aside. The petitioners in both the cases challenged the aforesaid orders by way of civil revisions which have been dismissed by the Lahore High Court as stated above. Hence the present petitions.
4. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners before us attempted to argue that the petitioners in both the cases had raised constructions on the excess areas and that the trial Court was correct in arriving at the conclusion that the excess areas be transferred to them as they were in possession of the same. The findings of fact against the petitioners are that they are encroachers and trespassers on the government land and that therefore they had no locus standi to ask for an injunction. It was in this background that the appellate Court had set aside the directions of the trial Court in that respect to the respondents which had beep upheld by the revisional Court.
5. ' Since the finding of fact is that the petitioners are trespassers, these are not fit cases for interference. As a result both these petitions namely Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeal Nos. 73 and 74 of 1983 are hereby dismissed.