' SHAHID ANWAR BAJWA, J.--- Suit for Specific Performance of contract was filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the present applicant. Suit was filed in January 1984. It was pleaded in the plaint that the plaintiff was allowed by the defendant/present Respondent No.1 to occupy residential Plot bearing No.S-1/76, in Saudabad, Malir, Karachi in 1975. It was further claimed in the plaint that suit plot was transferred in favour of the plaintiff by he Welfare Officer of the Trust the respondent No.
1. When the Trust failed to execute lease-deed in favour of the plaintiff although it had executed lease-deed in favour of one Gul Shahzad for another plot, the suit was filed with prayer that defendant be directed to execute a lease-deed for Plot No.S-1/766, Saudabad, Karachi in favour of the plaintiff.
2. Written-statement was filed by the present respondent No.l. It was denied in the written- statement that plaintiff was allotted the said plot. The plaintiff was stated to be an un-authorized occupant of the said plot and was alleged to have raised construction thereon illegally. It was specifically denied that the plot was transferred to the plaintiff as it had already been given to Jamat-e-Islamia Farooqui Masjid in 1969.
3. Two parties led their evidence and thereafter the trial Court vide order dated 4-2-2000 decreed the suit. An appeal was filed by the present plaintiff and the Appellate Court vide order dated 12-3- 2002 allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Being aggrieved by the order of the Appellate Court passed on 12-3-2002 this revision application was filed.
4. Learned counsel for the applicants extensively read from pages 93 to 101 (pages 11 to 15) of the order of the trial Court. He submitted that demand note dated 24-8-1971 was issued to him by the Additional Deputy Commissioner and he made payment of Rs.600 in accordance with the demand note. He further submitted that adjacent plot has been leased to one Gul Shahzad. However, when he approached respondent No.1 with request for lease of plot to him it was declined. He referred to cross-examination of the Welfare Officer of the respondent No.1, where the Welfare Officer had admitted occupation by the plaintiff and also admitted that construction of Masjid has been completed. However, Welfare Officer stated that the said plot has not been allotted to any one so far. Welfare Officer also stated that plan for Masjid was approved in 1969 and plot in question was allotted to the Masjid on 5-1-1984. The learned counsel referred to the allotment order dated 5-1- 1984 and submitted that there is no mention of his plot in this allotment order. He further submitted that no one from the Office of Deputy Commissioner appeared as witness.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent after referring to his written-statement pointed out that the plaintiff in his plaint had stated that he was allowed to occupy plot in 1975 by Welfare Officer. He submitted that the Welfare Officer has no authority to allot any plot to any one: it could only be done by the Board of Trustees. Learned counsel referred to the alleged letter of the Additional Deputy Commissioner and pointed out that firstly this letter contained typed date of 24-8-1971 and even the signatures bear the same date but thereafter date has been changed to 4-11-1972. He further submitted that this letter has never been brought in evidence. He further submitted that it was an amenity plot and could not have been utilized for the purpose of private resident.
Regarding manipulation of the date, the learned counsel pointed out that even annexure "E" is dated 12-12-1970 and plaintiff in his plaint has stated that he was put in occupation in 1975. No such order allowing him occupation has been produced in evidence.
6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and have also gone through the record.
7. Appellate Court framed the following issues:- "(1) Whether the suit of the plaintiff was not maintainable in law?
(2) Whether the plaintiff/respondent was allotted property in question legally and lawfully?
(3) Whether the Lower Court has committed any illegality or irregularity?
(4) What should the order be?"
8. On the first issue, the Appellate Court noted that the question to be determined is, because that was the main dispute between the parties, whether the plot in question was allotted to the plaintiff or not and if such allotment had taken place whether it was lawful and legal. The Appellate Court noted that Saudabad Trust was created on the basis of funds of Saudi officials and donors for religious purposes. It was the Board of Trustees and the Deputy Commissioner who were authorized to allot the plot and no other person was authorized and allotment made by any other cannot be treated as legal and valid until and unless the Board of Trustees had approved it and subsequently notified it. Welfare Officer give cover to a person who had been illegally put in possession. Since the plaintiff had pleaded that it was Welfare Officer who had allowed him the piece of land, such allotment, if at all, of such piece of land was non est. By-laws of the Trust contain no such authority for the Welfare Officer. Since the learned counsel for the applicants placed a lot of emphasis on the letter alleged to have been issued by the Additional Deputy Commissioner on 24-8-1971 or 4-11- 1972. It may refer to it. This letter is a cyclostyled document. Even the signatures are cyclostyled.
This letter was not produced in evidence. Even during appeal no efforts had been made to prove existence of this letter. Therefore, this Court just cannot act and decide on the basis of such a document which have no legs to stand upon.
9. Once a trespasser always a trespasser. The plaintiff has stated in his plaint that he was put in occupation and his claim is that he was allotted this plot by the Welfare Officer; unfortunately he has not been able to produce hat Welfare Officer in he dock. Bye-Laws of the Trust contain in Para- 4 provision in this regard. Relevant bye-law in para.4(a) is as under;- "4. Administrator.--- The Board may appoint an Administrator or Hony. Secretary for the supervision and administration of the Trust property on such terms and conditions and on such remuneration as the Board may decide from time to time.
(c) He shall have the powers to make allotment of land and quarters subject to the approval of the Trust."
10. Above makes it very clear that; (i) the plaintiff has been in illegal occupation of the plot in question; (ii) that no authorized person or the Trust had put the plaintiff in possession or had allotted the plot to him; (iii) the plaintiff is therefore a mere trespasser always liable to eviction.
11. Consequently this Revision Application fails and is dismissed.