Karachi (HRNW) \u2014 The Sindh High Court has declared a constitutional petition filed against the sealing of Pakistan Reinsurance Company\u2019s building on M.A. Jinnah Road by the Evacuee Trust Property Board as not maintainable, directing the parties to approach the appropriate legal forum provided under the relevant law for resolving the ownership dispute.<\/p>\n
During the hearing, counsel for the petitioner company argued that the building is the lawful property of Pakistan Reinsurance Company, and that in 1959 the title to the property was transferred to Pakistan Insurance Corporation under an agreement, whose succession now rests with Pakistan Reinsurance Company. The lawyer submitted that in May, the Evacuee Trust Property Board sealed the building without any prior notice, which severely affected access to office records and disrupted business operations. The petitioner requested the court to order de-sealing of the premises and restoration of the company\u2019s possession.<\/p>\n
Counsel for the Evacuee Trust Property Board contended that the building is registered in the Board\u2019s record as evacuee trust property and that a Gazette notification relating to the property was issued in 1963. He stated that, in compliance with Supreme Court directions, actions are being taken to recover trust properties from unauthorised occupants. According to him, show-cause and legal notices were served upon Pakistan Reinsurance Company, but the company failed to substantiate its claim of ownership through valid documentation. After completion of legal formalities, the building was sealed with the assistance of the FIA.<\/p>\n
Court\u2019s view and order
\nThe court observed that the petition raises complex questions, including the legal status of the original agreement, the validity of the Evacuee Trust Property Board\u2019s actions, and the character of the property as trust\/evacuee land. It noted that a proper decision on these issues requires detailed examination of documentary evidence and records, which falls outside the limited scope of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The bench held that disputes relating to title and possession cannot be conclusively decided in writ jurisdiction, and that specific appellate and other remedies are available in law against actions of the Evacuee Trust Property Board. The court therefore dismissed the petition as not maintainable, with liberty for the parties to pursue the appropriate legal forums.<\/p>\n
Short human-rights angle<\/p>\n
Disputes over trust and evacuee properties have direct implications for economic rights, business continuity, and the livelihoods of employees whose workplaces may be abruptly sealed. When offices are closed, staff, service users, and linked communities can suffer loss of income and disruption in essential services, turning what appears to be a technical ownership issue into a human-rights concern around the right to work and economic security.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n
The court\u2019s emphasis on using proper legal forums underlines the importance of due process, but it is equally important that those forums operate efficiently and without undue delay. Prolonged uncertainty over property and possession can undermine confidence in institutions and harm both workers and service recipients, making timely, transparent adjudication a practical safeguard for socio-economic rights.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Support appeal Short disclaimer
\nIndependent, carefully researched coverage of legal disputes, economic rights, and the intersection of state institutions, private entities and public interest is essential for transparency and accountability. Support our independent journalism and human-rights reporting \u2014 make a donation here:
\nhttp:\/\/www.hrnww.com\/?page_id=1083<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n
\nThis report is based on courtroom arguments and the court\u2019s oral observations as described, together with publicly available legal information. The ultimate legal status of the property, the agreement, and the Board\u2019s actions will depend on findings made by the competent trial or appellate forums in future proceedings. For definitive and updated legal positions, readers should consult official court records and statements issued by the relevant institutions.<\/p>\n