PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DO(R) Sheikhupura vs JAVED AKBAR S — 2022 SCMR 759 SUPREME-COURT

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

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DO(R) Sheikhupura VS JAVED AKBAR S. 42---Suit for declaration---Scope---Courts can issue declarations relating to existing rights and cannot create fresh/new rights in favour of either party. Head NotesCase Description Citation Name: 2022 SCMR 759 SUPREME-COURTBookmark this Case PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DO(R) Sheikhupura VS JAVED AKBAR Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Construction of pillars and boundary wall on a main road by Provincial Government---Plea of respondents that erection of pillars and construction of the wall in front of their land would not only block the view and exposure of their land but also cause hindrance in approaching the main road, and that as a consequence the land of the respondents would become valueless---High Court in its revisional jurisdiction gave directions that the Provincial Government shall provide a passage of 20 ft. to the respondents excluding the passage of Rajbah for transportation and exposure---Legality---Land whereupon the Provincial Government was constructing pillars and erecting a wall was owned by the Provincial Government having acquired the same from the predecessors of the respondents---Such predecessors had challenged the assessment of price made by the Land Acquisition Collector upto the Supreme Court and the matter stood concluded, and at no stage was any other relief sought---Respondents were aware of the modes of access to their land which had not in any manner been blocked by the Provincial Government---Just by reason of fact that the respondents had decided to construct a commercial building/plaza/ market on their land did not create any additional rights in their favour---Land in question was agricultural in nature and no commercial building/shopping plaza or offices, etc existed on the same---When no such commercial activity was being undertaken on the land of the respondents, there was no ground for them to raise an objection relating to blockage of view of the same---Further, the Provincial Government, which was the owner of the land abutting the road, could not be stopped from utilizing it in a manner for which it was specifically acquired and the Court could not carve out a passage in the land of another person specially when no right of easement was claimed or asserted---Respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving the fact that the passage of the respondents' land was being closed by raising pillars and a wall on the land acquired by the Provincial Government, and that such construction was being illegally done and with mala fides to block access to the land of the respondents---Examination of real time .photographs of the area and other related documents on record showed that the land of the respondents was at a considerable distance from the main road, and by no definition of the term did the land of the respondents abut the road---Substantial distance existed between the land of the respondents and the boundary of the land belonging to Provincial Government where pillars had been installed and a boundary wall was being constructed---Further, there was a passage besides the canal through which the land of the respondents could be accessed---High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a direction that the Provincial Government shall provide a 20 ft. passage to the respondents excluding the passage of Rajbah for transportation and exposure to the main road---Such a direction was neither supported by law nor did it fall within the jurisdiction of the High Court as a revisional Court---Impugned judgment of the High Court to the extent of such direction was not sustainable and was accordingly set aside---Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal and allowed. Head NotesCase Description

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DO(R) Sheikhupura vs JAVED AKBAR S — 2022 SCMR 759 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR