IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

H.C.A. No.41 OF 2022

[Muhammad Kamran & others v. Province of Sindh & others]

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan

Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito

Appellants : Through Mr. Zulfiqar Ali Langah, Advocate.

Respondent No.6 : Through M/s. Muhammad Najeeb Jamali, Areeb

Ahmed Soomro and Muhammad Yahya Iqbal,

Advocates.

Official Respondents: M/s. Sandeep Malani and Amna Usman, AAG

Sindh.

Date of hearing : 05.05.2026

Date of order : 05.05.2026

O R D E R

ARSHAD HUSSAIN KHAN J; Through the instant High Court Appeal, the appellants have assailed the order dated 20.12.2021 passed by the learned Single Judge of this court in Civil Suit No.1944 of 2018, whereby the appellants’ application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. read with Section 151 C.P.C. (C.M.A. No.14245 of 2017) was dismissed, resulting in the recall of the ad-interim protection earlier granted on 18.10.2017 in favour of the appellants-residents of Noor Muhammad Baraft Goth.

2. The brief and relevant facts giving rise to the present appeal are that the appellants claim to be residents of Noor Muhammad Baraft Goth, situated in Sector 7/A & 7/B, Scheme-33, Karachi-East, since the year 1960. According to the appellants, from the very inception they have been enjoying civic amenities, including electricity, water, sui gas, and sewerage facilities in the said Goth, and their CNICs also reflect the addresses of their respective residences therein. It is their case that, pursuant to an order issued in the year 1989 by respondent No.2, namely the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi-East, the land in question was allotted to them, and subsequently the Goth was regularized vide order dated 18.08.1990. In support of their claim of lawful occupation and possession, the appellants have also relied upon the voter lists for the year 2012 pertaining to both male and female residents. Apprehending forcible dispossession at the hands of the respondent, namely Aligarh Muslim University Old Boys Cooperative Housing Society Limited, the appellants instituted a civil suit in the year 2017, which was subsequently numbered as Suit No.1944 of 2018. Along with the suit, an application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 C.P.C. being C.M.A. No.14245 of 2017 was also filed, wherein ad-interim protection was granted on 18.10.2017. However, upon final hearing, the said application was dismissed vide order dated 20.12.2021, and the ad-interim order earlier granted was vacated. The appellants have assailed the said order through the present High Court Appeal.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge failed to appreciate the documentary evidence, specifically the 1990 regularization order and the survey conducted by the Assistant Commissioner (East) as well as the voter lists for the year 2012. Counsel further submits that the Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) of the appellants also reflect the Goth as their permanent and present addresses. It was contended that the appellants have a prima facie case based on long-standing possession and that the "balance of convenience" lies in their favor, as they have no other place of residence. Counsel further emphasized that under Article 9 of the Constitution, the State is obligated to protect the right to life, which encompasses the right to shelter, and that any eviction would result in irreparable loss and humanitarian distress.

4. Conversely, the learned Advocate General Sindh and the counsel for respondent No. 6 (Aligarh Muslim University Old Boys Cooperative Housing Society Limited) while supporting the impugned order have argued that appellants have no lawful claim over the subject property, asserting that the land in question is not a notified Katchi Abadi but rather is a high-value government property within Scheme 33. They submit that the appellants are mere encroachers who have failed to place any valid allotment letter or registered title deed on record to justify their occupation. It was further argued that the mere provision of utilities services or the issuance of CNICs at a particular address does not vest any proprietary interest in state land, nor can such documents be used to bypass the mandatory legal requirements for establishing ownership or a prima facie right to an injunction against the rightful authorities.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants, respondent No.6 as well as learned AAG Sindh and perused the material available on record with their assistance.

6. Upon careful examination of the pleadings and the material available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the voter lists of the year 2012 and the CNICs relied upon by the appellants may, at best, indicate their physical presence or residence at the site; however, such documents do not constitute proof of title or confer any proprietary interest in the land in question. It is a settled principle that, in matters seeking injunctive relief concerning State land, the claimant must establish a prima facie legal entitlement through a valid and recognized instrument of transfer or allotment, which requirement has not been fulfilled in the present case. Although the appellants have asserted that the Goth was regularized vide order dated 18.08.1990, no authentic title document or legally enforceable instrument has been produced on record sufficient to prima facie displace the ownership of the State. The learned Single Judge, therefore, rightly observed that reliance upon utility bills and similar documents is insufficient to establish any lawful right or interest in the subject property. Moreover, the appellants have also failed to demonstrate that the alleged regularization order of 1990 specifically pertains to the exact location, demarcation, and extent of the land presently under their occupation. In the absence of such material, no prima facie case warranting continuation of injunctive relief is made out.

7. A perusal of the impugned order further reflects that, when queried regarding the availability of any map, layout plan, geographical placement, sanction order, or other detailed documents pertaining to the alleged village under the Goth-Abad Scheme in favour of the appellants, they failed to provide any material indicating that such documents either existed or formed part of the official record. Rather, the appellants expressly denied the availability of any Sanads or record relating to Katchi Abadi regularization. Furthermore, while examining the rival claims of ownership, the learned Single Judge observed that respondent No.6, through its written statement as well as counter-affidavit filed to the injunction application, had categorically asserted title over the subject land. Unlike the appellants, respondent No.6 placed on record a chain of title documents in support of its claim, including an allotment letter, possession certificate, and Form-II issued by the competent revenue authorities. In these circumstances, we are of the considered view that the existence of documented title in favour of respondent No.6 substantially weakens the appellants’ claim of a prima facie case and tilts the balance of convenience against the grant of interlocutory injunctive relief.

8. It is a settled principle of law that mere possession, utility connections, or entries in official documents such as CNICs and voter lists do not, by themselves, confer any proprietary or ownership rights over State land in the absence of a lawful allotment, sanctioned grant, or registered title document. Mere long-standing occupation or residence cannot mature into ownership against the State, particularly when the doctrine of adverse possession is not attracted to public property.

Similarly, although the right to life and shelter forms part of the constitutional protections envisaged under Article 9 of the Constitution, such protection cannot be interpreted in a manner so as to override statutory requirements governing lawful title and ownership in property disputes.

9. For the foregoing reasons, we find no illegality, jurisdictional defect, or factual infirmity in the impugned order dated 20.12.2021 so as to warrant interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. Accordingly, the instant High Court Appeal stands dismissed. Needless to state that the findings recorded herein are tentative in nature, confined to the disposal of the injunction matter, and shall not influence the learned trial Court while deciding the suit finally on merits.

Instant High Court Appeal stands disposed of alongwith all pending applications.

JUDGE

JUDGE

Naveed PA