' MUHAMMAD ZAHOORUL HAQ, J.--The petitioner has felt aggrieved against the notice, dated 23-9-1980 issued by the District Magistrate (East), Karachi directing them to move out from eir present premises within one month or else action under Martial Law Order Regulation regarding the removal of encroachment will be taken.
The petitioner was granted four Acres of land by E.P.T. Board of E.T. Committee of the Government of Pakistan in Deh Okrewari on Club Road, which formed a part of the property of Pinjrapur Association on 10th February, 1964. The petitioner has alleged to have constructed a veterinary hospital over the same. On 8-7-1974, the D.C., Karachi permitted the petitioner to use an area of 2.20 Acres in the same Deh Okrewari for construction of hospital. This land was out of 8 Acres of land which had been acquired by Collector, Karachi for poor house.
2. The case of the petitioner is supported by affidavit that after 1974, they constructed the hospital on the plot so granted by huge investment of money. This position is not controverted in the counter-affidavit. In 1980, the Commissioner, Karachi decided to shift the poor house out of this locality. He wrote a letter to that effect on 14th May, 1980 and he further directed that the petitioner should also move out of the present premises to a suitable place on the outskirts of the city. By their letter, dated 2-6-1980, the petitioner declined to accept that position.
3. Consequently on 23-9-1980 the D.M. (East), Karachi issued impugned notice.
4. The respondents in their counter-affidavit have stated that the petitioners do not have statutory or other right and that the plot was given to them free of charge and, therefore, they have no right to remain over the same, because the allotment has been withdrawn. It was further stated that ownership of the land vest in the Government. It was also stated that the land originally was of Karachi Pinjrapur Association and the petitioner cannot stay on the Hindu plot for fulfilling that purpose. It was alleged that the petitioner had unauthorisedly set up a nursery to earn income.
5. It is quite clear to us that the petitioners have set up their hospital on the disputed land after due permission from the Government and Evacuee Property Trust Board and, therefore, their position cannot be disturbed in the summary manner which is sought to be done by the respondent. The allotment which was made in favour of the petitioner is not a mere allotment as it was coupled with possession and further to that the petitioners have made investment thereon by constructing buildings and thus they have acquired a vested right in the said plot.
The petitioners having vested right to continue their possession over the said plot of land they cannot be dispossessed from the same by the respondent without payment of compensation or otherwise and without appropriate civil proceeding; in accordance with law.
6. We have refrained from expressing our opinion about rights of owners of land to recover the rents from the petitioners as the petitioner is willing to pay the same as stated so as the bar by the petitioner's counsel.
7. Consequently we declare that the notice, dated 23-9-1980 issued by the respondent was without lawful authority. We may mention that the learned Additional Advocate-General Mr. Abdul Sattar Shaikh who had appeared before us had not shown any authority or law by virtue of which the respondent had issued the notice.
The respondent is restrained from putting the said notice into operation.