KARACHI, July 3: A division bench of the Sindh High Court has dismissed KDA’s contention in a land allotment case while allowing that of Makhdoom Bilawal Cooperative Housing Society.
The bench comprising Justice Zahid Kurban Alavi and Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmany held that nothing had been brought on record to establish that the land in question, which had been allotted to the society, had in effect been cancelled.
The bench was of the view that “this issue cannot be agitated by KDA as it only concerns the society and the Sindh government, and if the society’s land is so cancelled, it would seek its remedy before the appropriate forum.”
The bench allowed CMA 3472/2000 as well as CP No 419/1993 and dismissed CP No 665/1993.
According to the facts, petitioners Makhdoom Bilawal Cooperative Housing Society were leased out an area of 50 acres by the Sindh government for establishing a housing scheme, vide letter dated April 22, 1991 in survey no Na-Class 24 Deh Dih, Taluka, Karachi East. Thereafter, the petitioner society collected contributions from about 700 of its members and paid an amount of Rs4,537,500 to the Sindh government in May, 1991.
However, the Sindh government cancelled the lease, whereupon the petitioners approached this court, praying for restoration of the lease, etc. Finally, the said petition was disposed of on Dec 19, 1991, vide a consent order to which the KDA was also a party and in terms of which a compromise application was allowed whereby the petitioners were granted alternate 50 acres of land in survey no Na-Class No 24.
In view of the above consent order, the petitioners’ society was handed over possession of the land in question on Feb 11, 1992, per copy of the possession letter. Further payments were made to the Sindh government and a huge amount was also spent on construction of a boundary wall and other development works by the petitioners. Finally, a development plan was sent for approval to respondent no 1, KDA.
Thereafter, further disputes developed between the parties and the KDA again started to assert its claim over the petitioner’s property. As a result, the petitioners were constrained to file a civil suit before the 6th Sr Civil Judge, Karachi East. Thereafter, the KDA rejected the layout plan proposed by the petitioners who were consequently constrained to file the present petition with the prayer that it be declared that the KDA has no right or title over the petitioners’ land and that the petitioners proposed layout/development plan, etc, may be approved after fulfilling all the requirements of the relevant rules and regulations.
In the para-wise comments filed by the KDA, it was maintained firstly that the entire Deh had fallen in the area of Korangi Township and has been placed at the disposal of the KDA for development/construction work for rehabilitation of displaced persons. Hence, the Sindh government has no power or authority to dispose of/transfer the land to the petitioners.
It was further stated that the land in question was part of Scheme No 31-A, Mehran Town, Korangi Township, which was allotted through balloting to overseas Pakistanis and national hockey players, etc.
Mushtaq A. Memon, counsel for the society, submitted that the allotment of the land in question to the society was a past and closed transaction, as per the compromise entered between the parties in CP No 937/1991 and the dismissal of the application under Section 12(2), CPC filed by KDA in the said constitution petition and further dismissal of the leave to appeal filed by KDA before the Supreme Court, reported in KDA vs Makhdoom Bilawal Cooperative Housing Society Ltd (2001 SCMR 1277).
Mr Memon further submitted that rights and liabilities of the parties have also been finally adjudicated in suit nos 605/1992 and 606/1992 by this court, whereby it had been decreed that KDA had no power to claim ownership of the land in question.
The decrees in the said suits were appealed by the KDA in HCA nos 103 and 104 of 1995, which were also dismissed and finally, in turn, the leave to appeal filed by KDA against such HCA viz CPSLA 383 of 1995 was also dismissed.
Consequently, the counsel submitted that as the matter had reached finality, CMA 3472/2000 which was filed in CP No 419/1993 be allowed and the said petition be decided in favour of the society, whereas CP No 665/1993 be dismissed.
On the other hand, Nazar Hussain Dhoon, appearing for KDA, urged that in view of the Sindh Urban State Land (cancellation of allotments, conversion and exchanges) Ordinance, 2001, vide Section 4 thereof, the land of the society was cancelled and hence the decision of the courts of law, holding otherwise, cannot be implemented.
The KDA counsel claimed that the land which was allotted to the society belonged to KDA’s Mehran Town Scheme.
The advocate general fully supported Mushtaq A. Memon in view of the fact that per Karachi Development Authority vs Makhdoom Bilawal Cooperative Housing Society (2001 SCMR 1277), conclusive findings had been given by the Supreme Court that the disputed land was never allotted to KDA.
He had further submitted that as regards Ordinance No 3 of 2001, this could not be taken advantage of by the KDA once the Sindh government had conceded before the Supreme Court. Even otherwise, the Sindh government had never cancelled the petitioners’ land, the order said.
After hearing arguments and taking into account the verdict of the Supreme Court, the bench held that nothing was brought on the record to establish that the land in question, which had been allotted to the society, has in effect been cancelled.
Plea admitted: A division bench of the SHC comprising Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali and Justice Mujeebullah Siddiqui allowed an appeal filed by a convict sentenced by Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Larkana. The trial court sentenced the accused/appellant under Section 13-D of Arms Ordinance to undergo five-year imprisonment, adds APP.
Asif Ali Soomro, advocate, appearing for the appellant submitted that the trial court misread the prosecution’s evidence. He also contended that all the prosecution witnesses are police officials, interested and partisan.
Habib Ahmed, Assistant AAG, opposed the appeal.
The bench, after hearing both the sides, allowed the appeal ordered release of the appellant.
