KARACHI, May 15: The brother of Sarfraz Shah, a young man who was shot dead by Rangers and left to die inside a park in Clifton in June 2011, has filed an application to enter into a compromise with seven convicts, including six Rangers men.
The victim’s brother, Salik Shah, moved an application in the Sindh High Court on behalf of all legal heirs of the victim to enter into a compromise with the convicts.
The applicant, represented by Advocate Amir Mansoob Qureshi, also filed affidavits on behalf of other heirs of the victim.
He had earlier filed an appeal in the SHC seeking enhancement in the sentences handed down to six Rangers personnel from life term to capital punishment.
An anti-terrorism court headed by Judge Bashir Ahmed Khoso had sentenced Rangers constable Shahid Zafar to death and jailed Sub-Inspector Bahaur Rehman, Lance Naik Liaquat Ali and constables Muhammad Tariq, Manthar Ali and Afzal Khan for life on Aug 12, 2011.
A civilian contractor, Afsar Khan, was also jailed for life in the case.
The convicts have already filed their respective appeals in the high court against their conviction.
Sarfraz Shah, who was handed over to the Rangers personnel by the civilian contractor, was shot at and left to die inside the Shaheed Benazir Bhutto Park in Clifton on June 8, 2011. The incident was filmed by a private TV channel cameraman and the footage was shown by various TV channels.
Security for ex-ATC judge ordered The Sindh High Court on Wednesday ordered the provincial authorities to provide adequate and effective security to a former judge of an anti-terrorism court.A division bench headed by Justice Maqbool Baqar also issued notices to the respondents and adjourned the hearing to May 28.
The petitioner, Syed Hassan Shah Bukhari, represented by Advocate Hassan Kursheed, cited the home secretary, the provincial police chief and the SSP-Security as respondents.
He submitted that he had decided a number of high-profile cases, including the Nishtar Park bombing case and Corps Commander convoy attack case.
The former ATC judge submitted that he had serious threats to his life and family as his residence had been fired upon at least three times in the recent past.
He said that he was provided security after he wrote a letter to the SHC chief justice for it. However, he said that the provincial authorities withdrew the security personnel in March suddenly without even intimating him.
The former judge asked the court to direct the home department and the provincial police chief to provide him security.
Pleas against demolition of houses disposed of The Sindh High Court on Wednesday directed the authorities not to demolish the houses of over 50 individuals who might face displacement due to the Lyari Expressway project unless they were paid compensation.
A division bench headed by Justice Maqbool Baqar gave this direction while disposing of as many as four constitutional petitions.
The petitions were filed by residents of Liaquatabad, Angara Goth, who prayed to the court for compensation before demolition of their houses.
The petitioners, represented by Advocate Shaukat Ali Shaikh, stated that they were settled in Laiquatabad and the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and the Karachi Development Authority had regularised their plots granting registered lease to them since 1966.
Their counsel submitted that disputes between the petitioners and the respondents pertained only to the valuation of their properties, but the respondents were not willing to pay compensation amount to them as per directions of the SHC as they were paying only Rs10,000 per square yard, while the petitioners claimed Rs50,000/sq yard and as well as the price of construction was also different between the petitioners and the respondents.
Advocate Shaikh submitted that the principles laid down for determination of compensation to the affected people of the project was adequately enough in the sense that they were to be given “gold for gold and not copper for gold”.
The petitioners submitted that on the other hand respondents were trying to demolish their houses though they had registered lease deeds.
They stated that the respondents did not pay the compensation amount to them as per directions of the SHC and their acts were against Section 16 (2) of the Land Acquisition (Sindh Amendment) Act, 2009.
The petitioners stated that they first filed a petition before the SHC that accepted the rights of the petitioners.
They recalled that the SHC while disposing of their petition had directed the respondent to either resolve the dispute through private settlement or by appropriate compensation to the petitioners in accordance with the law keeping in view the areas leased out in their favour and construction raised thereon.
The petitioners submitted that in the second round of the litigation the SHC accepted the rights of the petitioners and disposed of the petitions (D-2088/2009) on Dec 12, 2010 with a direction to the respondents that the petitioners may not be dispossessed without complying with the formalities as required under the Land Acquisition Act.
They said that the directions of the court were binding on the respondents but neither did they resolve the dispute through private settlement with the petitioners nor did they follow law, although appropriate compensation amount was their right.
The petitioners said that they were unwilling to hand over their houses to the respondents because they had not received the market price of their houses by them.
They stated that the revenue officer had discussed Deh-wise price of state land for the purpose of the allotment and in the said meeting land of Liaquatabad was mentioned as Rs25,000/- per square yard, being minimum valuation of the property although market value of the property was more then Rs45,000 per sq yard.
They submitted that under Sections 11 and 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 it was the responsibility of the respondents/collector to consider the potential value and future prospects of the land or compulsory charges, depreciation in currency in addition to one year average of the properties of the petitioners but the respondents were not willing to comply with the requirements.
The petitioners stated that the respondents had still not paid the compensation to those householders whose land was acquired by them in 2006 and demolished their houses without paying the compensation.
The petitioners asked the court to direct the respondents to pay an adequate compensation as per market value or consider Section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894.
They also prayed to the court to restrain the respondents, their agents, servants and subordinates from demolishing their houses and not to harass and pressurise them till they received compensation as per market value or the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 from the nazir of the court.