Mst. GHULAM FATIMA alias GULL GOTAI vs Mufti MUHAMMAD YAQ00B KHAN, ADVOCATE and 4 others
The petitioner sought leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court order that dismissed her constitutional petition in limine. The underlying dispute originated from eviction proceedings initiated by the respondent against the petitioner's sons regarding a property in the Gulshan Ravi Scheme, Lahore. Following an eviction order against her sons, the petitioner filed a civil suit and objections in the executing court, asserting her own ownership based on a 1958 conveyance deed. These objections and subsequent appeals were dismissed by the lower courts. Before the Supreme Court, the petitioner argued that her ownership rights were established by the 1958 document. However, the Court noted that the land in question had been subsequently acquired by the Lahore Development Authority for the development of the Gulshan Ravi Township, and the petitioner had failed to secure any recognition of her rights during that acquisition process. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner could not enforce an antiquated document to challenge established property rights in execution proceedings or through a constitutional petition. Consequently, the Court found no grounds for interference and refused leave to appeal.
- Can a party assert ownership of property based on a prior conveyance deed after the land has been acquired by a development authority?
- Is a constitutional petition an appropriate remedy to challenge ownership claims already adjudicated in execution proceedings?
- Can an eviction order against occupants be challenged by a third party claiming ownership through a prior conveyance deed in execution proceedings?
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.--The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the order of Lahore High Court dated 18-4-1992 whereby a Constitution petition filed by her was dismissed in limine.
2. The respondent No,1 proceeded against the sons of the petitioner for eviction from a property bearing No, SW-XII-5-TS Gulshan Ravi Scheme, "G" Block, Lahore.
' The application was resisted. The ownership of Yaqoob was denied. However, the Rent matter concluded in the hierarchy with an eviction order against her sons. She then came forward with a civil suit and an objection in the executing Court with regard to her own ownership of the house.
The objection was rejected. So was appeal. This Constitution Petition also failed.
3. From what we have been able to ascertain from the learned counsel for the petitioner is that on the basis of a conveyance of the year 1958 for Rs,95 she claims to be owner of the property. It is not denied that thereafter the entire land in the vicinity was acquired for the Lahore Development Authority and Gulshan Ravi Township came into existence after the disposal of the land on its acquisition. The petitioner could not press and obtain any relief against Lahore Development Authority in recognition of her rights in the land. She wants now to enforce that earlier document to establish her ownership. This cannot be done either in the execution proceedings or by means of a Constitution Petition. The objection petition was rightly dismissed.
4. No case is made out for our interference and leave to appeal is refused.