1. ' KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.---Brief facts to decide the appeal are that appellant filed Suit No, 1719 of 2000 for declaration, permanent injunctions, mandatory injunctions, registered deed under katchi abadi regularization scheme or alternative recovery of Rs,30,00,000 (Rupees thirty lacs) as damages. It was alleged by the appellant that she is an old occupant of a house since her birth in the year, 1970 residing in the House Nos. 1676 or 1688 Bezzerta Line, Dhobi Ghat, Katchi Abadi opposite of JPMC Hospital Karachi admeasuring 120 sq.Yards. In front of the house four shops were constructed by her, which the appellant has given on rent and on the back portion of the house the appellant is residing along with her family.
2. ' Federal Government in the years, 1982 declared Bezzerta Line Dhobi Ghat to be bazaar area in Karachi Cantonment 'under S.R.O. No,688(I)/82 vide Gazette of Pakistan, dated 16-9-1982. It was alleged that by virtue of Notification whole of the area Bezzerta Line Dhobi Ghat in which the house of the plaintiff is situated was regularized upon the receipt of payment of development charges, etc, in favour of respective occupants. It was alleged that in the said Gazette Notification it was ordered that entire area of Bezzerta Line Dhobi Ghat should be surveyed and regularized upon payment of development charges, cost of land and other dues etc. Numbers of occupants who have means and sources got their properties regularized and registered lease agreements have between executed in their favour by respondent No,3 and the remaining other occupants including appellant plaintiff because of meagre low income could not even approach respondent No,3 for execution of the lease deed in their favour and now when appellant approached to execute the lease agreement the same was denied by the respondent No,3 and as such appellant filed suit for declaration that she has acquired vested enforceable right in respect of the house as well as shops and open space in front of it and further mandatory injunction to regularize from Katchi Abadi into Bazar Area and respondent be directed to execute lease in favour of the appellant.
3. ' The respondent filed written statement and alleged that the appellant is encroacher of land in question with the area in possession of the appellant and same form part of the land owned by the respondent No,2 JPMC and the appellant is not entitled for any relief. On having information about notification S.R.O. No,611(I)/82 the respondent approached to the concerned authority who after taking into consideration all the aspect of the matter issued S.R.O. No, 758(I) 88, dated 4th September, 1988 and in suppression earlier Notification No,888(I)/82. After recording of evidence learned Single Judge dismissed the suit holding that the appellant has no locus standi in the suit property.
4. ' Heard Mr. Ahmed Hassan Rana learned counsel for the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Jamil learned counsel for respondent No,1 and Mr. Dilawar Hussain learned counsel for respondent No,2.
5. ' Mr. Arshad Hassan Rana, learned counsel for the appellant, vehemently argued that the appellant acquired vested right under S.R.O. No,888(1)/82, dated 16th September, 1982 and such right cannot be rescinded, modified or withdrawn by the respondent by issuing another notification. It was argued by the learned Advocate for the appellant that the appellant is in possession of the property in question right from the beginning and is entitled for grant of lease, which were executed in favour of other occupants of the area. Leaned Advocate in support. Of his contention relied upon the case of Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs v. Azizullah Industries Chitagoing, PLD 1970 SC 439, Pakistan v. Muhammad Himayaullah Farukh, PLD 1970 SC 407, and Gatron (Industries) Ltd. Government of Pakistan 1999 SCM R 1072.
6. ' On the other hand, Mr. Dilawar Hussain, learned counsel for respondent No,2. Vehemently argued that the appellant is encroacher and the land in question is owned by the respondent No,2 and was not available for declaration as Bazar by respondent No,3.
7. ' We have taken into consideration respective arguments advanced by the learned Advocates for the parties, perused the record. The appellant claimed his right in respect of the property in her possession on the basis of Notification S.R.O. No, 888(1)/82. From perusal of the said S.R.O. It appears that in exercise of powers under subsection (1) of section 43-A of the Cantonments Act, 1924. Federal Government declared the area specified in schedule to be bazaar area in Karachi Cantonment. Under section 43A of the Cantonments Act, a Cantonment Board has to constitute committee consisting of elected members of the Board for administration of such area in the cantonment as may be notification in the official Gazette declare to be bazaar areas, and may delegate its power and duties to such committee in the manner provided in clause (e) of subsection (1) of section 44. No document has been produced by the appellant that the area in which appellant house is situated was declared as katchi abadi. The cantonment authority after declaration of the area as "Bazaar" survey the same, prepared the list of occupants and issued lease under Schedule 8 of the Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937, for 30 years on payment of yearly rent. The appellant had not produced survey list of the occupants prepared by the respondent after declaring the area as bazaar to show that when the area was declared as "Bazaar" in terms of S.R.O. 888(1)/82, she was in occupation of the house in question. Respondents' witness produced list of the occupants of the area an admittedly name of the appellant does not appear in the said list.
8. ' The respondent witness produced letter, dated 8-6-1988/87 in which he admitted that an area about 2.1 acres out of the area 4.4 acres vide Survey Nos.171 and 191 has been occupied by the occupants who have constructed their houses. The witness also produced list If 600 persons occupying houses in the area notified as bazaar in the year, 1982 in which appellant's name has not appeared.
9. ' Burden heavily lies upon appellant to prove that she was in possession of the property in question prior to the date when Notification S.R.O. No,888(1)/82 was issued, which burden appellant has failed to discharge. Respondent No,2 produced minutes of the meeting held on 24-6-1984 between the Officers of Cantonment Board.
10. ' From perusal of the minutes of the meeting, it appears that there was some dispute between the respondents about the ownership of 4.4 acres of land in Survey No,191 the dispute after deliberation between the parties was resolved and recommendation was issued for excluding 4.4 acres of land from the area declared as "Bazar' by Notification S.R.O. No,888(0/82. From the material on record as we have noted hereinabove that the appellant has failed to discharge burden upon her that she was in possession of the property in question at time when Notification S.R.O. No,888/(I)82 was issued and further that the respondent No,3 lawfully issued notification as the land on which appellant claim her interest was owned by respondent No,2.
11. ' The case-law relied upon by the learned advocate is not attracted to the facts of the case as appellant did not acquire any right, title or interest in respect of the property in question merely because respondent No,3 had issued notification in respect of the land owned by the respondents Nos.2 and 1 realizing the same issued amended notification.
12. ' For the foregoing reasons, the appeal has no merits and is accordingly dismissed along with the listed application (C.M.A. No,451/2003).