MUHAMMAD RAFIQ vs DIVISIONAL ENGINEER, P.W. RAILWAY and others

' This Revision is directed against the judgment/decrees dated 3-4-1980 and dated 17-8-1987 passed in Suit No2930 of 1979 and Civil Appeal No,239 of 1985 respectively by the learned Second Senior Civil Judge, Karachi and the learned Vth Additional District Judge, Karachi respectively dismissing the petitioner's suit for declaration and permanent injunction in respect of a piece of land belonging to the respondent, whereon the petitioner had raised hutment.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above Revision are that the petitioner was working as S.S. Fitter in the Pakistan Railway and during duty hours on 12-4-1974 the petitioner lost his both the legs in an accident and, therefore, he was declared as unfit for service by a letter dated 25-9-1974.

It is the case of the petitioner that after leaving the service, he was permitted by respondent No,2 to occupy the suit piece of land for raising hutment and use as a shop for earning livelihood. It was also the case of the petitioner that he submitted an application for allotment and also a plan for raising construction. However, the respondent threatened to take action against the petitioner and, therefore he filed the aforesaid suit for the aforesaid reliefs. The above suit was resisted by the respondent. The learned Second Senior Civil Judge after recording the evidence and after hearing the parties by the aforesaid judgment/decree dated 3-4-1980 dismissed the suit by holding that the petitioner had no title or right to the piece of land in dispute. Against the above judgment/decree the petitioner filed aforesaid Civil Appeal No,239 of 1985, which was also dismissed by the learned Vth Additional District Judge. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above two judgments and decrees has filed the present Revision Petition.

3. Since the petitioner is an infirm person and had lost his 2 legs while in service of the respondent, I had issued a pre-admission notice to the respondents in order to find out whether the petitioner can be accommodated by the Railway Administration on humanitarian grounds leaving apart the legal aspect. Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haque Advocate and Mr. Raja Shamasus-Zaman in response to the above notice have appeared for Railway Administration and have submitted that the petitioner might occupy a portion of land in Hijrat Colony which is in occupation of many encroachers and that such occupation might be eventually regularised as Kachi Abadi, the petitioner was not willing to occupy any piece of land in the above colony.

4. I have heard Mr. Faizanul Haq and I find that there is a concurrent finding of the two Courts on the question of fact and cannot be disturbed in a Revision unless the finding is perverse and contrary to record. It is an admitted position that the petitioner does not hold any allotment order from the Railway Authorities. I would, therefore, maintain the above two judgments/decrees and dismiss the above Revision in Whine.

' However, I would grant one year's time to the petitioner from today to vacate the premises. In the meantime, he any approach the Railway Authorities with the request to accommodate him in any colony where it is possible taking into consideration the factum that the petitioner had lost his 2 legs while in service of the Railways and therefore for his livelihood he had to do some petty business.