Pakistan Case LawCANTONMENT BOARD through Executive Officer, Rawalpindi Versus Sheikh
This matter concerns a dispute over the ownership rights of land surrounding a cinema property in Rawalpindi. The respondent, claiming ownership of the land through a family agreement and inheritance, filed a suit for a permanent injunction against the Cantonment Board, which had been collecting parking fees on the disputed land. The trial court and the first appellate court dismissed the respondent's suit, finding that the transfer documents only conveyed rights to the building itself, not the surrounding compound. However, the High Court reversed these findings and decreed the suit in favor of the respondent. The Cantonment Board appealed to the Supreme Court. The core legal question is whether the transfer of evacuee rights in a building necessarily includes the surrounding compound or land. The Supreme Court, noting the need for a reappraisal of the evidence regarding the scope of the transfer documents, granted leave to appeal to determine if the High Court's decision was legally sound in its interpretation of the property transfer.
- Does the transfer of evacuee rights in a building automatically include the surrounding compound or land?
- Is a High Court's finding on the scope of a property transfer subject to reappraisal by the Supreme Court when the lower courts reached a contrary conclusion?
ORDER
MIR HAZAR KHAN KHOSO, J.---Vide permanent transfer deed dated 23-9-1964, Cirose Cinema, Rawalpindi, was transferred to M/s Muhammad Din and Company. The General Land Register maintained by the Military Estate Office shows that it was transferred to respondent Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad by way of family agreement (inheritance) under the provisions of Muhammadan Law, vide agreement dated 20-7-1965. The Cantonment Board started collecting car parking fee outside the Cinema. Sheikh Khurshid Ahmad, therefore, filed suit for permanent injunction against the petitioner before the Court of Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, claiming that the petitioner had no right to collect parking fee from the cars parked on the respondent's owned land. The suit was resisted by the petitioner. On pleadings of the parties following two issues were framed:--
2.The parties led evidence in support of their claims. On 17-114981 the learned Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, dismissed the suit. The respondent filed appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi, who also maintained the judgment of the learned Civil Judge and dismissed the appeal. The respondent, therefore, filed revision petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi, who was pleased to accept the revision petition and decreed the suit of the respondent. The petitioner has challenged the above said order of the High Court before this Court.
3.We have heard Mr. Sardar Muhammad Ghazi, Advocate Supreme Court with Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record for the petitioner and Mirza Anwar Baig, Advocate Supreme Court with Mr. Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record, for the respondent.
4.The P.T.D. Issued by the Settlement Authorities in favour of the respondent shows that only the evacuee rights and interest in respect of the building were transferred to the respondent. There is no mention regarding the compound (land) of the building. The learned Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit of the respondent, whereas the High Court decreed his suit. Whether the compound of the cinema alongwith the building was transferred to the respondent, needs reappraisal of the evidence. We are, therefore, inclined to grant leave to appeal. Leave to appeal is granted accordingly.
Judges on this bench
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments
- Mir Hazar Khan Khoso453 judgments