1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 19-2-2002 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, whereby Civil Revision No,1525 of 1982 filed by the respondents was accepted and the judgment, dated 16-6-1982 of the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, was set aside and the earlier judgment rendered by the trial Court on 19-12-1981 was restored.
2. ' The facts briefly stated are that on 26-5-1973 the respondents/plaintiffs filed a declaratory suit against the Municipal Committee and others taking exception to the construction of Khokhas in Chota Rail Bazar, Toba Tek Singh, towards the backside of their Shop No,P-201/1 which was allotted by the Settlement Authorities to Muhammad Shafi, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, in the year 1962. A perpetual injunction restraining petitioner No,1 to issue Tehbazari tickets was also claimed. The suit was contested by the petitioners/defendants. Issues were framed. The parties led their evidence and the learned trial Court through its judgment/decree, dated 19-12-1981 decreed the suit. The petitioners filed an appeal against the aforesaid judgment which was accepted by the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, vide his judgment, dated 16-6-1982 and the declaratory suit filed by the plaintiffs/respondents was dismissed.
3. ' Civil Revision No,1525 of 1982 was preferred by the respondents which has been allowed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, through the judgment, dated 19-2-2002, impugned herein, and the earlier judgment/decree passed by the trial Court has been restored.
4. Hence this petition for leave to appeal.
5. ' We have considered the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents placed on record with their assistance. It is admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents' predecessor-in-interest was duly allotted Shop No,P-201/1 by the Settlement Authority. It is reflected from the perusal of the documents annexed with this petition that certain Khokhas were allowed to be set up in Chota Rail Bazar, Toba Tek Singh, by the Municipal Committee. It is also apparent that placing of these Khokhas alongwith the shop of the respondents/plaintiffs had diminished the value and importance .Thereof. By this act of the petitioners, the view of the allotted shop of the respondents abutting at Chota Rail Bazar had completely been marred. It is also borne out from the record that the said encroachers are not only affecting the business of the plaintiffs/respondents by placing Khokhas in front of their shop but had also caused inconvenience to the general public in the use of public way. The learned trial Court gave cogent reasons for decreeing the suit of the plaintiffs/respondents but the learned District Judge on wrong premises held it a private thoroughfare. The learned District Judge erroneously held that it was not a public road and even if that was so, under section 83 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, the Municipal Committee was empowered to grant licences to raise Khokhas on its land.
6. ' We are sorry to hold that the learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court has rightly pointed out that the learned District Judge, Faisalabad, while setting aside the judgment of the trial Court, had totally bye-passed the rights of the people whose property abuts on public road have got right to approach to the property from all points free from all hinderances. In this regard it would be appropriate to reproduce the observation of the learned Single Judge of Lahore High Court in the following terms:-- ' "However, I find that the learned District Judge has opted to observe that it is not a public thoroughfare. Proceeding on the said assumption the learned District Judge has validated the encroachment of the said road by the private respondents with the licence of the respondent No,1 and consequently has completely overlooked the effect of the same on the right of frontage vesting in the petitioners. The right of a person owning property on a public road to approach the road from all points of the property abutting thereon has been recognized by the Courts in the sub-continent and jealously guarded since ancient times. In case of Pakistan National Oils Ltd. And another v. Sattar Muhammad (1980 SCM R 686), after reference to several judgments from various High Courts of the sub-Continent their Lordships deduced that the principle of law, no doubt, is that an owner of land/property adjacent to the public highway has a right of frontage at all points in boundaries between his property and the road. In the instant case, the learned District Judge while holding that the property of the respondents has an opening towards the Main Bazaar failed to note that the said fact is wholy irrelevant. Whereas it is established that the property abuts on the public road then the said right of frontage comes to be vested in the owner of the property and by itself entitles him to seek relief from the Court to protect the said right. In the present case, additionally the petitioners have proved that their ventilators, door and approach to the roof through the stairs is towards the said Rail Bazaar which admittedly stands blocked because of the setting up of the Kiosks right adjacent to the outer walls of the property."
7. ' Before parting with this judgment we are astonished to note that the Municipal Committee, which is petitioner No .1 in this petition, has associated itself with petitioners Nos.2 to 14 who are admittedly encroachers. Through this petition Municipal Committee is out to protect their illegal encroachment which cannot be appreciated on any score. We have also noticed that the respondents in this case have been meted out discriminatory treatment by the Municipal Committee as illegal Khokhas in similar circumstances were removed in two different cases as noted by the trial Court in Issue No,5. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent has stated at the Bar that by the construction of these Khokhas the public road, which was earlier 50-60 feet wide, has been reduced to 20 feet. Through the removal of these illegal encroachments, according to him, general public would be benefited and the respondents would not have any objection for the use of this land for public thoroughfare.
8. Resultantly, in view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition being without any force is hereby dismissed and leave declined.