DIN MUHAMMAD QURESHI vs GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others
This matter arises from a constitutional petition concerning the unauthorized occupation of a building lacking an occupancy certificate. The core legal question is whether occupants of a building without a valid occupancy certificate can legally continue occupation and whether authorities are bound to execute ejectment. The Sindh High Court held that the occupation of any part of a building in the absence of an occupancy certificate is illegal, and directed the concerned authorities to eject the illegal occupants, utilizing force if necessary, with the assistance of the provincial government. The key principle laid down is that occupation of a building without the requisite occupancy certificate under the relevant building control laws is unlawful, and the authorities are duty-bound to ensure ejectment and compliance with the law.
- Is the occupation of any part of a building legal in the absence of an occupancy certificate?
- Can authorities use force to eject illegal occupants from a building lacking an occupancy certificate?
- Do occupants of an illegal building without an occupancy certificate have a legal right to be impleaded as a party in proceedings concerning its demolition?
- Section 6(2), Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- A report has been submitted in Court on behalf of respondent No,3 stating that ejectment notices had been issued to the occupants before causing demolition but the occupants have not yet vacated the building and necessary assistance to cause ejectment was not made available. We would reiterate that in the absence of occupancy certificate under section 6(2) of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance occupation of any part of the building would be illegal. Moreover, Mr. Muhammad Muzaffarul Haq has pointed out that an application on behalf of certain occupants to be impleaded as party to this petition was dismissed by the Court vide order, dated 16-4-1999 wherein it was observed that they do not have any legal right to be joined but would be free to seek remedies before a proper forum, if so advised. According to taught counsel no interim or final order protecting their occupation has to the best of his knowledge, been passed by any Court. In the circumstances we would grant three months' time to the respondents to eject the occupants, if necessary by force, and perform their duties according to law. The respondent No,1 is directed to provide necessary assistance to the respondent No,3. A compliance report may be submitted after the aforesaid period.
Cited by 8 cases
- Tanveer Ahmed & 02 Others vs Province of Sindh & Others 2023 SHC 491
- Dr. PERVAIZ MEHMOOD HASHMI vs PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary 2016 PLD Sindh 114
- Fateh Muhammad, etc vs Allah Wasaya, etc 2015 LHC 7040
- Fateh Muhammad, etc. vs Allah Wasaya, etc. 2016 C.L.R. 83
- FATEH MUHAMMAD and 11 others vs ALLAH WASAYA and 3 others 2017 MLD 1787
- Messrs BUILDING STORE and others vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and others 2014 PLD Sindh 34
- Mrs. ZUBAIDA vs CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI and others 2004 PLD Karachi 304
- Mrs. Zubaida vs City Distt. Govt. Karachi and others 2004 C.L.R. 1233