PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

Sheikh IMRAN AHMED vs The DIRECTOR GENERAL K — 2022 CLC 682 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation
2022 CLC 682 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court
Sindh High Court
Year
2022
Reporter
CLC
Parties
Sheikh IMRAN AHMED vs The DIRECTOR GENERAL K
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 3---L; Limitation Act (IX of 1908); Limitation Act

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

Sheikh IMRAN AHMED VS The DIRECTOR GENERAL K.D.A. S.3---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.144---Amenity plot---Petitioner claimed that he purchased the suit plot from respondent/Authority in 1982; that utility services were in his name; that respondent sent notice in 1990 that petitioner was an encroacher and should vacate the said plot, which was replied by the petitioner and civil Court had granted stay on 23/12/1990; respondent offered the petitioner an alternate plot which offer was accepted by the petitioner but the respondent had retracted; and that in 2011, respondent demolished the house/shops upon the said plot and took over the plot---Suit regarding the plot was decreed in favour of petitioner in 1999---Appeal of respondent was allowed---Validity---As per the version of petitioner, he was in occupation of plot since many years, hence due to efflux of time he was entitled for its allotment---Article 144 of Limitation Act, 1908, which dealt with adverse possession already stood omitted by Act II of 1995, thus the petitioner's stance was misconceived---Suit plot was a ST amenity plot and admittedly petitioner was not its owner---Petitioner could never purchase an amenity plot---Encroacher could not claim ownership/possession over any plot---Encroacher could never claim any alternate land/plot nor was entitled for any compensation---Simply on the basis of having utility bills in one's name, ownership rights could neither be claimed nor could be conferred upon a person---Simply the ground that the petitioner was an old occupant of the plot would not entitle him to be granted allotment of the said plot even if he had made some Pakka construction upon it---Petitioner was neither entitled for allotment of plot nor of any alternate plot or compensation, whatsoever---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLC

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English