MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, J. Through the present Civil Revision Application, the Applicant has called in question the Judgment dated 08.06.2007 passed by the learned Appellate Court, whereby , the Civil Appeal No. 03 of 2006 of present Applicant was dismissed and the Order dated 22.11.2005 followed by the Decree dated 24.11.2005, of learned Trial Court, was maintained, whereby , the Plaint in First Class Suit No.71 of 1999 (filed by the Applicant as Plaintiff ),was rejected.
2. Succinctly , the dispute between the Applicant and the Respondents [Pakistan Railways] relates to an allotment of 225 Square Feet of Railways' Land at Railway Station Bhiria Road, to the grandfather of the Applicant for the purposes of running a shop/cabin. With the passage of time, the predecessor-in-interest/father of Applicant also occupied the adjacent area of 1433 square feet for extension of his business and to forestall (as claimed by the Applicant) any attempt of encroachment by any third party .
3. The litigation between the Applicant and Respondent-Pakistan Railways started when the latter issued a notice dated 25.05.1999 to the Applicant for vacating the adjacent land, which was unlawfully occupied, rather encroached upon by the present Applican t. As per the pleadings of Respondent, the Applicant is also defaulter in payment of rentals.
4. The matter was reserved for Judgment on 11.12.2017 with the permission to file Written Synopsis. Both the learned counsel for the parties filed their respective W ritten Synopsis.
5. Applicant's counsel has specifically addressed the query mentioned in order of 11.12.2017; that after passing of ex-parte Judgment and Decree dated 31.08.2000, the same was subsequently set-aside on the Application filed by present Respondent under Order IX Rule 9 of C.P.C. This fact is also mentioned in the Memo of Appeal of present Applicant, which is available in the record.
6. The main stance of Applicant is that the original land comprising of 225 square feet was allotted to the grandfather of Applicant in recognition of his services to Pakistan Railways (Respondent); on this adjacent land, the Applicant and his ancestor constructed a 'hotel', infact a restaurant, comprising of 'Katcha/Pacca' structure, for which the Applicant is seeking a relief that the said unauthorized occupation of Applicant be regularized by the Respondents. The Applicant has challenged the vacation notice dated 28.5.1999 issued by Respondent under Sections 3 and 5 of the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965.
7. On the other hand, the arguments of Respondents are that because the default in payment of rentals and for encroaching the adjacent land, the allotm ent of the above land was cancelled. Applicant and his predecessors were/are the trespassers as far as the adjacent area of 1433 sq. ft. is concerned.
8. Perusal of record available shows that the above area was given by Respondent to Applicant on license , which under law is revocable. This document is appended as Annexure-A with the instant Civil Revision. Even in the present pleadings (paragraph 7) it has been stated that, the Applicant is a 'licensee'. Secondly , the Applicant cannot compel the Respondent for regularization of an area unauthorizedly occupied by, him. It is a settled principle that a licensee cannot file proceedings of the nature, seeking declaratory or injunctive relief as envisaged in the Specific Relief Act, 1877, but being a licensee he can only sue for damages. A well-known decision this point of law is PLD 1965 SC page 83 (M.A. Naser v. Chairman Pakistan Eastern Railways and others ). The same has been followed in the subsequent case of Messrs Noorani Traders v. Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority PLD 2002 Karachi 83; a division bench judgment. Admittedly , the present Applicant has not sought any relief for damages in his plaint, which is available in present proceeding record.
9. The impugned decision of the learned Appellate Court has correctly reached the conclusion after appreciation of facts and applying the law, particularly by following the rule laid down by the Hon'bl e Supreme Court in the reported case of S.M. Shall Ahmed Zaidi v. Malik Hassan Ali Khan 2002 SCMR Page 338, wherein, inter alia, it is held, that while rejecting a plaint, other material available on record having its own intrinsic value can also be considered, besides the averments of the plaint itself Therefore, the case law cited by the Applicant is distinguishable and do not support the case of the Applicant .
10. The upshot of the above is that both the learned Courts below I B have applied their judicial mind while exercising their respective I jurisdiction and no material irregularity is present in the impugned decision(s) and thus Applicant has failed to make out a case for an interference in the above decisions in this revisional proceeding.
Consequently , the present Revision Application is dismissed along with all listed applications.
11. However , it is clarified that the presen t Applicant may prefer an application/representation to the Respondents for allotment of land/cabin or any other space and the Respondent-Pakistan Railways will consider and decide the said application (if any) by a speaking order , within the parameters of law , rules and its present policy .
Parties to bear their own costs.
APPENDIX Case-law-cited by the Applicant's counsel
1. 1998 CLC 1073 (DB) Karachi (Muhammad Ansar Hussain v . K.D.A.)
2. 1997 CLC Page 1005 Karachi (Baba Handi Craft v . Civil Aviation Authority)
3. PLD 1993 Quetta Page-121 (Deputy Commissioner v . Abdul Salam)
4. 1999 CLC Page-246 (Abdul Zahir v . Mir Muhammad)
5. 1985 CLC Page-2852 (Mst. Koori and another v . Allah W asaya and others)
6. 2010 YLR Page-857 Nizamuddin through Special Attorney v . Nazar Muhammad and others)
7. 2008 YLR Page-1287 (Major S.M. Hafiz v . Shafqat Ali Qureshi)
8. PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) Page-142 (Province of Sindh v . Public at Large)
9. 1991 SCMR Page-525 (Qalandar Din v . Rasul Khan)
Case-law relied upon by Respondent's counsel
1. 2007 SCMR Page-741 (Raja Ali Shah v . Messrs Essem Limited Hotel)
3. 2014 SCMR Page-513 (b)
(Noor Din v . Additional District Judge)
4. PLD 2009 Karachi Page-373 (Allah W arayo v . Khalifo Mohammad Ashraf)
Other Precedents: (1) PLD 1965 Page-83 (M.A. Naser v . Chairman Pakistan Eastern Railways and others). [ Naser Case ]. (2) PLD 2002 Karachi Page-83 M/s. Noorani T raders v . Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority)
[Noorani Case ] (3) 2002 SCMR Page-338 , (S.M. Shafi Ahmed Zaidi v . Malik Hassan Ali Khan [ Shafi Case ].
Law under discussion:(1) Specific Relief Act, 1877
(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [ C.P.C.]
(3) Central Government Lands and Buildings ( Recovery of Possession ) Ordinance, 1965