GHULAM AMIR vs MUNICIPAL CORPORATION and others
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a challenge to the dismissal of a civil revision by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts regarding a property dispute. The petitioner sought a declaration and injunction against the Municipal Corporation, claiming the illegality of a scheme under which his property was acquired and his building plan rejected. The core legal question was whether the lower courts erred in their concurrent findings of fact regarding the validity of the acquisition and the approved status of the scheme. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of fact established that the suit property was included in an approved scheme since 1942-43 and had been duly acquired. Furthermore, the petitioner's own evidence confirmed the acquisition. The Court affirmed that where title to the property already vested in the Municipal Corporation, the rejection of a building plan was justified. Consequently, the Court found no infirmity in the impugned judgment and dismissed the petition, refusing to grant leave to appeal.
- Can a petitioner challenge the rejection of a building plan if the title to the suit property has already vested in a municipal corporation?
- Does the Supreme Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by lower courts in civil revision proceedings?
- Is a building plan sanctionable for property that has been duly acquired under an approved municipal scheme?
- Article 185(3), Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973
' FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 against judgment dated 2-11-1999 whereby Civil Revision No,1451-D of 1986 was dismissed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore. .
2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner made an application for sanctioning a building plan of the suit property measuring 1 Kanal, 8 Marlas which was rejected by the respondent No,1 on 26-7-1975. He filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction that the very scheme framed by the respondent/Corporation within which the suit property fell was illegal. The Civil Judge, Sialkot dismissed the civil suit of the petitioner by judgment and decree dated 24-4-1984. The appeal of the petitioner was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge on 16-4-1986 followed by the impugned judgment dated 2-11-1992 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No,1451-D of 1986.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the High Court was bound to pass a speaking order and to go through the record of the case before disposing of the civil revision. There was neither any properly sanctioned scheme nor any valid acquisition covering the suit-land.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length. All the Courts recorded concurrent findings of fact that the suit property was included in an approved scheme of the respondent/corporation since 1942-43 and that the suit property had been duly atquired. It was also observed that the petitioner had admitted The acquisition of the suit property and had produced through P.W.2, a Building Inspector of the respondent-Corporation a copy of the judgment delivered by the High Court in Regular Second Appeal No,365 of- 1967. In these circumstances, there was no question of the sanctioning of the building plan of the petitioner qua the suit property the title of which already vested in the respondent-Corporation. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity so as to call for interference by this Court. This is not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal.
5. We do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.