2010 MLD 1477 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Full text

TUFAIL MUHAMAMD VS JOINT ESTATE OFFICER Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965--5 , Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965--6 , Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance 1965--9 , Specific Relief Act 1877--42 , Specific Relief Act 1877--54 , Ss. 5, 6 & 9---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---eviction of unauthorized occupants of government property---Suit had been concurrently dismissed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court---Main contention of the plaintiff was that he was lawful allottee of the flat in question, rent of which was regularly deducted from his salary; and that the defendant/Federal Government had no concern with the flat as same was never surrendered in pool of the Federal Government---Defendant/ Joint Estate Officer who was trying to obtain possession of flat in question under provisions of Central Government Land and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965 had alleged that no allotment order in respect of allotment of flat existed in favour of the plaintiff and he being unauthorized occupant was not entitled for allotment of the same---Plaintiff had failed to place any allotment order in his favour, while it was proved that the flat in question had been placed in pool of Federal Government who was competent authority---Claim of the plaintiff in respect of allotment of flat in his name had been rejected up to the Supreme Court in previous round of litigation which had shown mala fide on the part of the plaintiff as he concealed said material fact from the courts---Plaintiff had only succeeded to get favourable orders and gained a lot of time to retain the flat in question with the help of litigation, which was not only objectionable, rather unfortunate---Due to such conduct of the. plaintiff he deserved no leniency as he made abuse of process of law and remained in possession of flat in question for more than ten years unauthorizedly---Suit filed by the plaintiff had rightly been dismissed concurrently by the courts below---No illegality or material irregularity had been pointed out by the plaintiff on basis of which concurrent judgments of the courts below could be interfered with by the High Court---Concerned authorities must adopt the mode of recovery of possession of flat in question as provided in S.6 of Central Government Land and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965---Petition was dismissed.