' AJMAL MIAN, J.-This is a petition for leave to appeal filed jointly by 134 persons, who have claimed that most of them are old/lower employees of M.E.S. And other Government. Departments in the area and that they are rightful and peaceful occupants in possession from the beginning and that they have built up their own houses which are about 200 in number and wherein thousands of people are living with families. They have impugned the order dated 2-2-1995 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh passed in Constitutional Petition No,D-2520 of 1993, filed by them challenging the notices for ejectment issued by respondent No,2 (i.e, Station Headquarter (Army) through Commander, Karachi), dismissing the aforesaid Constitutional petition by holding that they were unauthorized occupants. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
2. The above case had come up for hearing before this Court inter alia on 17-3-1997, when the Bench hearing the same directed the learned Standing Counsel to seek instructions from the respondents on the question, as to whether some other unauthorized persons of the locality in question similarly placed have been allowed alternate accommodation by the Pakistan Navy.
3. In response to the above order, Mr. S. Tariq Ali, learned Standing Counsel, has filed a letter dated 15-5-1997 addressed to the Standing Counsel for Federal Government of Pakistan by Pakistan Navy Staff Officer (Legal) for Commander Karachi, and also a confidential letter dated 15-4-1997 addressed to the Standing Counsel on behalf of the Station Commander, Karachi Cantonment, averring therein as under:- Letter dated 15-5-1997"I am directed to provide information in connection with above-mentioned petition as pleaded by the counsel of the petitioners that `certain occupants of houses had been provided alternate land by the Pakistan Navy previously for residential purposes'. It is stated that contention of petitioners is false, concocted and to mislead the Court. PN Pool accommodation is allotted to PN Personnel and civilian employees of Pakistan Navy, as per procedure laid down in Pakistan Allocation Rules, 1973 as amended from time to time. After retirement on becoming unauthorized occupation, the allottee/retired employees are needed to vacate the said accommodation.
Pakistan Navy has not paid any compensation/land in lieu thereof to unauthorized retired person uptil now."
Letter dated15-4-1997 "1. It Is submitted that Mes Colony is a Government constructed accommodation, required to be used for the employees of army. As is evident from the name (MES) Military Engineering Service Colony, it is meant for the civil employees and others of defence while on active service/duty. Over a period of time, when civil employees got retired from service, they refused to vacate the accommodation. They filed a case in the Court not only for grant of ownership rights and but also to prolong their stay. In addition, some of them have also accommodated their relatives with them who are employed in jobs at Karachi.
2. It may be mentioned- that the serving employees are being affected adversely due to non- availability of accommodation and their children education is suffering by virtue of illegal occupation of Government accommodation. The vacation of this accommodation is pending since the case is with the honourable Court for decision.
Confidential ' The information and details as desired by the honourable Court are appended below for consideration please:-- A. There exists no precedence wherein unauthorised occupants of Government accommodation were allotted plots or given compensation in lieu by defence forces. B. The accommodation/colony constructed by the Government is meant for the Employees of Military Engineering Service Department and others while on active service and otherwise. The plea by retired persons/unauthorised occupants for retention of accommodation on permanent basis or allotment of plots in lieu cannot be accepted as there exists no provision in the law. C. The fact can also be verified on ground that this colony is located in the midst of Army Cantt. Which if converted into Katchi Abadi not only will jeopardize the security of armed forces but also set a precedence for future wherein nobody will vacate Government accommodation either on retirement or once illegally occupied thus putting the whole system in jeopardy. D. There is an acute shortage of accommodation at Karachi Station at present and availability of this accommodation soonest possible will help alleviate the sufferings of low-paid employees of defence forces who have been deprived of their right since long due to illegal occupation.
3. Submitted as desired please."
4. We have heard Mr. Ali Akbar, learned A.O.R. In support of the above petition. The thrust of his arguments was that the respondents have failed to show that the area where the houses in question are situated, belong to the Government by producing any plan or other documents. His further submission was that the petitioners have been residing in the houses which, according to him, were constructed by the petitioners themselves for nearly 50 years ago and, therefore, in any case the said houses constitute Katchi Abadi entitling the petitioners to the transfer of the same.
5. We are not impressed by the above -submission. Since the petitioners have approached the High Court, it is for them to have produced some reliable documentary evidence to show that the area in which their houses are situated does not belong to the Government. They cannot shift the burden on the respondents. The question, as to whether they have themselves raised the houses or the houses belong to the Government, was a question which should have been determined by the High Court in the exercise of its. Constitutional jurisdiction. In any case it was not germane if the end did not belong to the petitioners. The petitioners failed to show a legal title or infringement of any other legal right which could be enforced through a Constitutional petition.
' However, Mr. Ali Akbar submitted that the case falls under the human rights category as the petitioners are entitled to have a place to live as human beings.
The above contention is also not tenable as the aforesaid right of the petitioners should also be founded on some legal provision.
6. Then lastly it was urged by Mr. Ali Akbar that this Court may observe that the petitioners will be evicted in accordance with law.
' In our view, the apprehension of the petitioners that they will not be evicted in accordance with law is not well-founded.
7. It was also submitted by him that this Court may make observation that the petitioners may be provided alternate accommodation or plot.
' It will suffice to observe that the Government may consider the above request of the petitioners according to law.
8. The upshot of the above discussion is that the aforesaid petition has no merits. Leave is refused.