1. This is a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of C.P.C. Directed against an order dated 2-3- 1993 passed in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 33 of 1992 (Mayor, K.M.C., and another v. Aqil Badshah) by I-Additional District Judge, Karachi-West, whereby the appeal was allowed and order granting temporary injunction by I-Senior Civil Judge, Karachi-West, in Suit No.707 of 1991 was set aside.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the applicant/plaintiff filed Suit No.707 of 1991 against the respondents for declaration and injunction praying, therein as under:-- "(a) That it be declared that the Notice dated 17-10-1991 issued under the Provisions of Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 1975 is illegal, bad-in-law, without jurisdiction, ab initio, void, mala fide motivated with bad faith to cause political victimisation and is beyond the scope of Provisions of the said Act as the property for which the Notice has been issued is not a Public Property and after the recovery of occupancy charges/costs of Land from the Plaintiff, the same has become a private property and K.M.C. Is bound to execute Lease in favour of the Plaintiff.
(b) Permanent Injunction be issued against the defendants, their servants, and agents and all those claiming through or under them from demolishing and/or disturbing the Plaintiff's House/Shop on Plot No.Saeedabad Quarters, Baldia Town, Karachi in any manner whatsoever.
(c) That the Mandatory Injunction be issued against the defendants directing them to issue Challans to the plaintiff for the remaining instalments of occupancy charges/costs of the Plot in question and execute the lease according to law. "
3. The applicant/plaintiff alongwith the plaint filed an application for grant of temporary injunction against the respondents restraining them from demolishing/disturbing the house/shop in dispute.
4. The respondents also filed an application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. For rejection of the plaint on the ground that suit was barred under sections 11 and 13 of Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975. The learned Senior Civil Judge granted temporary injunction against the respondents while application under Order 7, Rule 11, C.P.C. Was rejected.
5. Against the order of learned Senior Civil Judge granting temporary injunction Appeal No.33 of 1992 was preferred by the respondents/defendants and the First Additional District Judge, Karachi-West, in the impugned order dated 2-3-1993 has observed:-- "I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It has been held in 1974 SCMR page 356, that jurisdiction of Civil Courts, even if barred and conferred on special tribunals, Civil Courts being Courts of ultimate jurisdiction have jurisdiction to examine acts of such forums to see if such are in accordance with law of illegal or even mala fide. In the present case the respondent has no authority to occupy the suit premises. In the case of Haji Muhammad v. K.M.C. Reported in 1979 CLC page 815 it has been held that mere acceptance of property tax by Corporation does not make the occupation of the petitioner legal. Thus, in view of the above case- --law the payment of property to Excise and Taxation Department and the payment of K.M.C. Taxes does not make the occupation of the respondent legal. The respondent, himself has filed suit for regularization of his possession against the appellants, hence he cannot challenge the status of the disputed property to be not public property. The case-law reported in PLD 1984 Karachi Page 34, has therefore, no application in the present case. In the case reported in PLD 1982 Supreme Court page 308, it has been held that person can be deemed to be aggrieved if possessed some interest in corpus of property to which law attaches some sanctity. Interest of trespasser not such interest which has blessing of any law. Trespasser cannot maintain writ petition. In the present case, the possession of respondent is as a trespasser, and in view of the above case-law no prima facie case is made out in his favour, nor balance of convenience is in his favour. He is, therefore, not entitled for grant of temporary injunction. The trial Court has erred in holding that prima facie case and balance of convenience are in favour of the respondent. For the foregoing reasons the appeal is allowed and impugned order is set aside. The trial Court should not be influenced by the observation made in this judgment at the time of final disposal of the suit."
6. The case of the applicant is that as he has been in possession of the house constructed on plot No.5-A-1-12 and has been paying taxes in respect of said house to the authorities, therefore, he is entitled to the relief of declaration that the notice dated 17-10-1991 issued under the provisions of Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 1975 is illegal as the property for which notice is issued is not public property and after the recovery of occupancy charges/costs of land, same has become private property and K.M.C. Is bound to execute lease in favour of the applicant/plaintiff and the respondents be restrained by permanent injunction from demolishing the applicant's house/shop. The applicant in his plaint neither claims to be owner nor lessee nor allottee of the plot over which alleged house has been raised. The applicant states in the plaint that K.M.C. Is bound to execute the lease in his favour thereby admits the ownership of K.M.C. Prima facie in the stated circumstances, the applicant would be encroacher over the property which is owned by K.M.C. Hence would be public property. Mere fact that the applicant has paid property tax or any other tax to K.M.C., prima facie it would not regularise the unauthorized occupation of the applicant. Reference may be made to Haji Muhammad v. K.M.C. (1979 CLC 815). The applicant himself states that the property vests with the K.M.C. In the said circumstances, prima facie the applicant could not be said to be entitled to challenge that the property in question was not public property. Applicant ex-facie appears to be trespasser over the land belonging to the respondents and the applicant has not challenged the title of the respondents over the land. Trespasser could not be said to have legal interest in the property therefore would not be entitled to equitable relief of injunction. Reference may be made to Anjuman Araian, Bhera v. Abdul Rashid and others (PLD 1982 SC 308). No case for interference in the revisional jurisdiction is made out consequently, this revision application has no merit and is dismissed.