SHC imposes Rs100,000 cost on filing frivolous petition

The Sindh High Court (SHC) dismissed a petition filed by a man against alleged encroachment of his land by private persons and imposed a Rs100,000 cost on the petition observing that the misuse of judicial resources on a meritless claim warranted the imposition of exemplary costs to deter frivolous litigation in the future.

The petitioner, Mohammad Akram, had claimed to be a “co-owner/one of the legal heirs of owner” of 45 acres of land in Manghopir and Goth Haji Mehmood. He submitted that the 36 acres land in Goth Haji Mehmood was sanctioned in favour of Haji Mehmood, his grandfather, after whom the eponymous goth is named.

He also annexed documents, alleged entries in the record of rights, specifically Form-VII of January 14, 1982 and April 16, 1997 in favour of his grandfather and grandmother. A division bench of the SHC comprising Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed and Justice Sana Akram Minhas after perusal of record observed that annexed documents presented a glaring contradiction, casting serious doubts not only about the petitioner’s ownership claims and his bonafides, but also the genuineness of the documents attached.

The high court observed that these major inconsistencies included both the sanction orders of November 30, 1989 and August 12, 1993 allegedly issued by the West deputy commissioner under the provisions of the Sindh Goth-Abad (Housing Scheme) Act, 1987, specifically its sections 3, 8 and 10.

The SHC observed that the 1987 law did not grant any authority to any provincial functionary to either sanction a village or allocate land for any village and its limited purpose was merely to provide housing facilities to deserving persons in rural areas.

The high court observed that both the sanction letters were not only unlawful and beyond the jurisdiction of the West deputy commissioner, but also appeared fraudulent, if not outright bogus.

The SHC observed that the Section 31 of the 1987 Act permitted an allocation of only 200 square yards per ‘deserving person’ and that too on the recommendation of the allotment committee.

The high court observed that there was no logical or legal justification for how the petitioner (or his alleged predecessors) had allegedly acquired the 36 acres i.e. the entire Goth Haji Mehmood land under a law that strictly limited land allotment of 200 square yards.

The bench observed that clearly the petitioner’s claim to such extensive landholdings was not only absurd but also blatantly illegal. The SHC observed that even otherwise, the two Form-VII documents relied upon by the petitioner neither constituted the title documents in favour of his grandparents nor established any valid transfer of ownership in his favour.

The high court observed that while the petitioner asserted co-ownership and claimed to be a legal heir of his grandparents, he failed to produce any documentary evidence to substantiate his heirship or establish his inheritance rights.

The SHC observed that the petitioner’s primary grievance was against private persons, who had allegedly encroached upon his purported land. The high court observed that the petitioner’s claim concerned an alleged private dispute over property rights and fell outside the scope of the constitutional jurisdiction under the Article 199 of the Constitution as constitutional petitions were not intended to adjudicate private disputes between individuals.

The high court observed that the petition was based on patently contradictory and dubious documents, demonstrating a lack of bonafides on the part of the petitioner and he had failed to establish any lawful entitlement to the alleged land, rendering the petition frivolous and vexatious. The high court dismissed the petition with imposing a cost of Rs100,000.