IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN
(APPELLATE JURISDICTION)
PRESENT:
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN
MR. JUSTICE SAJJAD ALl SHAH
MR. JUSTICE MUNIB AKHTAR
Civil Petition No.23384 & 2258-L of 2017
Against judgment dated 22.06.20 17 of Lahore
High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision
No.2937 of 2014.
Province of Punjab through DO(R)
Sheikhupura, etc
Javed Akbar & another
VERSUS
Javed Akbar & others
Petitioners (in CPl233B.L/27)
Petitioners ft. Cp2258•L117)
Respondentsfi
Province of Punjab through DO(R) 
Respondents c2258-V!7I
Sheikhupura, etc
For the Petitioner(s): 
Mr. Qasim Ali Chauhan, Addl.AG, Pb
(in CP# 2338-LI 17)
Syed M. Kaleem A. Khurshid, Sr.ASC
(in CP44 2258-LI 17)
For the Respondent(s)
Date of Hearing:
Mr. Qasim Ali Chauhan, Addl.AG, Pb
(in CP92258-L/17)
Syed M. Kaleem A. Khurshid, Sr.ASC
(in cP#2338-L/1 7)
19.11.202 1
ORDER
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J-. Through this common
judgment, we propose to decide CPLA No.2338-L of 2017
(filed by Province of Punjab through District Officer
(Revenue), Sheikhupura and others) and CPLA No.2258-L
of 2017 (filed by Javed Akbar and another), both of which
arise out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore
dated 22.06.20 17 whereby a Civil Revision bearing
I a. 
tt Wa.2338L 2258L .f2017 
2
No.2937 of 2014 filed by the Province of Punjab was
disposed of with certain directions.
2.
For ease of reference, the Province of Punjab
will be described as the petitioner and Javed Akbar and
others will be referred to as the Respondents.
3.
Briefly stated the facts necessary for disposal
of these petitions are that the Respondents instituted a
suit for declaration alongwith permanent injunction
against the petitioners on the ground that they were
owners in possession of the suit land which is situated at
Lahore-Sheikhupura Road. It was alleged that front of
the land of the Respondents is on Lahore- Sheikhupura
Road and the land in question is of a commercial nature.
The Respondents wanted to construct a market on the
land in question and for the said purpose they had
applied for issuance of an NOC before the competent
authorities. The petitioners had started construction of
Lahore-Faisalabad two ways road and intended to erect
pillars and construct a wall in front of the land of the
Respondents. Such wall, if constructed will not only
block the view and exposure of the land of the
Respondents but also cause hindrance in approaching
the main road. It was claimed that if the petitioners were
allowed to raise construction, the land of the
Respondents would become valueless. The petitioners
II
'ci.PuS.tNa233&L&22581o(2Oi7 
3
contested the suit by filing written statement wherein it
was stated that the land was owned by the Provincial
Government which was acquired from the predecessors
of the Respondents who had raised no objection at any
stage. Therefore, the Respondents had no locus stanch to
me the suit. The Trial Court dismissed the suit vide
judgment and decree dated 10.12.2011. However, the
appeal filed by the Respondents against the said
judgment and decree was allowed, vide judgment and
decree dated 15.04.2014. The revision petition filed by
the petitioners was disposed of with a direction that the
petitioners shall provide a passage of 201t to the
Respondents excluding the passage of Rajbah for
transportation and exposure. The petitioners are
aggrieved of such direction. The Respondents in their
CPLA have challenged the entire judgment of the High
Court.
4. The learned Additional Advocate General,
Punjab submits that the land on which pillars are being
erected belongs to the Provincial Government and it was
acquired by the Government for the purpose of
dualization of Lahore - Sheikhupura Road and
construction of a mechanical workshop which has since
been constructed. The predecessors of the Respondents
being dissatisfied with the assessment of the price made
c 0 2338-L & 
.12017
by the Land Acquisition Collector initiated proceedings
under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894
which went upto this Court and the matter was finalized
and at no stage was any other relief claimed or sought.
When the Respondents purchased the land in question,
they were fully aware of its location and access and
cannot now be heard to assert that the acquired land
cannot be used for the purposes that it was acquired
because it will reduce the commercial value of the
property. He further maintains that the impression
sought to be created by the Respondents is that the land
abuts the Highway or is very close to it which is factually
incorrect as is evident from the aerial view of the area,
real time photographs of which have been placed on
record alongwith other relevant information and data
through CMA No.3773W of 2018. He therefore maintains
that the learned High Court erred in law and exceeded its
jurisdiction by issuing a direction to the petitioners to
provide a 20ft passage to the Respondents excluding the
passage of Rajbah for access to the land of the
Respondents. He further points out that there is already
a passage available and other modes of access to the land
of the Respondents and in fact the Respondents wish to
construct a commercial plaza! market on the land and to
obstruct the petitioners in fulfilling the purpose for which
the land was acquired by the Government.
I 
1rpqNa23SL&5-LOf2O17 
5
5.
The learned counsel for the Respondents on
the other hand has argued that in case the petitioners
undertake construction according to their proposed plan,
the exposure and frontage of the land of the Respondents
will be closed and the Respondents would have no access
to the main road despite the fact that the land is
commercial in nature. He maintains that the petitioners
may be directed to provide a passage like the passage
granted to petrol pumps situated on main road. He
further maintains that the Appellate Court had correctly
appraised the evidence and rightly decreed the suit of the
Respondents.
6.
We have heard the learned Additional Advocate
General, Punjab appearing for the petitioners as well as
the learned counsel for the Respondents and gone
through the record with theft assistance. There is no
denial of the fact that the land whereupon the petitioners
are constructing pillars and erecting a wall is owned by
the Provincial Government having acquired the same
from the predecessors of the Respondents. Such
predecessors had challenged the assessment of price
made by the Land Acquisition Collector upto this Court
and the matter stood concluded. It is significant to note
that at no stage was any other relief sought. The
Respondents were aware of the modes of access to their
• ciL!7 Pe1ja. M233&L & 2258-L ot2017 
6
land which have not in any manner been blocked by the
petitioners. There is also no denial of the fact that the
land on which the Provincial Government proposes to
erect pillars and / or construct a wall belongs to the
Provincial Government and was specifically acquired for
the dualization of Lahore - Sheikhupura Road and
providing ancillary services including a mechanical
workshop. Just by reason of fact that the Respondents
have decided to construct a commercial
building/plaza/market on their land does not create any
additional rights in their favour which may have been
asserted in the specific facts and circumstances of this
case.
7. It appears from the record that before the
lower fora a stance was taken by the Respondents that
there was apparently a passage from their land to the
main road passing through the land acquired by the
petitioners which was allegedly being blocked. Ex.P/2
and Ex.P/3 are Aks Shajrah Parcha of the land in issue.
Perusal of the same reveals that the land of the
petitioners abuts the road which is not disputed. The
revenue documents do not show any passage passing
through the land of the petitioners to the land of the
Respondents. The Respondents never produced any
document or evidence to show that any such passage
0
I WFSU N23384 &2258-L.12017 
7
ever existed. The Respondents also never produced any
document to show that any such passage existed or was
kept intact at the time of acquisition of land by the
petitioners. Further, no evidence was produced showing
that any objection was taken at any stage with reference
to the passage. Therefore, the existence of any passage
claimed by the Respondents was never established.
Further, no easement right was ever claimed by the
Respondents in the contents of the plaint. Under the law,
the Courts can issue declarations relating to existing
rights and cannot create fresh/new rights in favour of the
either party.
8. The learned counsel for the Respondents has
laid much emphasis on the blockage of view of any
construction that may be undertaken on the land of the
Respondents in future. We find that the land in question
is agricultural in nature and no commercial
building/ shopping plaza or offices, etc exist on the same.
When no such commercial activity is being undertaken
on the land of the Respondents, there is no ground for
them to raise an objection relating to blockage of view of
the same. Further, we are not convinced that in the facts
and circumstances of the case, the owner of the land
abutting the road can be stopped from utilizing it in a
manner for which it was specifically acquired and how
L
S QiJ&1ion No 23384 22o* otAsul
and under what law can a Court carve out a passage in
the land of another person specially when no right of
easement is claimed or asserted. The Respondents in our
view failed to discharge the onus of proving the fact that
the passage of the Respondents' land was being closed by
raising pillars and a wall on the land acquired by the
petitioners and that such construction was being illegally
done and with malafides to block access to the land of
the Respondents.
9. Further, we have carefully examined the real
time photographs of the area and other related
documents filed through CMA No.3773-L of 2018 and
find that the land of the Respondents is at a considerable
distance from the main road, the Highway Mechanical
Workshop already exists on the side of the road and by
no definition of the term does the land of the
Respondents abuts the road. There is a substantial
distance between the land of the Respondents and the
boundary of the land of the petitioners where pillars have
been installed and a boundary wall is being constructed.
Further, there is a passage besides the canal through
which the land of the Respondents can be accessed.
Consequent on the claim that such passage belongs to
the Irrigation Department which may not allow such
passage to be used, we have specifically asked the
I • aclPnsnN2338-L&22S84il2O27 
9
learned counsel for the Respondents if any such
permission has been sought or denied. He has submitted
that according to his instructions no such permission
has been sought. We therefore find that the learned High
Court misread the material available on record and
assumed not only that the land belonging to the
petitioners abutted the road but that no access to such
land was available. Such conclusion is not supported
either by the record or the photographs which have been
placed on record and examined by us in an enlarged form
in Court while hearing this matter.
10. Therefore, we are of the view that the learned
High Court exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing a direction
that the petitioners shall provide a 20ft passage to the
Respondents excluding the passage of Rajbah for
transportation and exposure to the main road. Such a
direction is neither supported by law nor does it fall
within the jurisdiction of the High Court as a revisional
Court. As such, we find that the impugned judgment of
the High Court dated 22.06.20 17 to the extent of the
direction in question is not sustainable and is
accordingly set aside. Consequently, CPLA No.2338-L of
2017 is converted into an appeal and allowed.
11. 
As a result, for the same reasons as
enumerated above, CPLA No.2258-L of 2017 is found to
i QL.1 t1,? N,, MS-1 & 2258-1 .r2017 
10
be without merit. It is
appeal is refused.
ISLAMABAD.
19
Y N' Approved
112021
 For Re rting' 
