HYDERABAD: Senior Civil Judge-II, Hyderabad, Wasim Ahmed Phulpoto on Tuesday rejected applications for a stay order against eviction of tenants from 115 shops and warehouses on a piece of land owned by the Hyderabad District Police Shopping Welfare Fund Scheme and Board of Revenue (BoR).

Traders of Chotki Ghitti Bazaar have been operating 86 shops and 29 godowns (warehouses) in the commercial plazas standing on the land, that also houses SSP’s office, police station, a lock-up etc. The private tenants have been operating their outlets for over three decades, according to applicant Anjuman Tajiran Chotki Ghitti.

The court also rejected stay applications filed by two other shopkeepers.

Barrister Jawad Qureshi and Advocate Riazuddin Qureshi represented the plaintiffs.

Over 100 ‘decades-old’ commercial outlets set to be closed

The lawyers argued that all three suits had properties/shops which were let out to them by President of the scheme/SSP, estate management officer of the district police.

They said they were served notices by district police, directing them to vacate

the premises as per an order of Supreme Court for demolition of the structures. The plaintiffs contended that their shops/godowns did not fall within the ambit of the April 15, 2019 and Sept 28, 2022 orders of Supreme Court.

They claimed that the district police were using the SC orders to dispossess tenants and let out the shops/godowns to other parties on higher rents. They said that the April 15, 2019 order regarding police picket and its scope could not be extended. They prayed for allowing stay application in the respective suits.

Deputy District Attorney Syed Zulfikar submitted that defendants were given directives by SC through the April 15, 2019 order and an explanation regarding compliance was sought through the Sept 28, 2022 order. He said police authorities had to proceed according to SC’s orders. He said that suits were not maintainable before court thus should be dismissed, and added that the plaintiffs could have approached SC.

The judge noted that admittedly there was no dispute over title of district police nor was there any dispute that the plaintiffs and members of the traders’ association were tenants of the properties that had been let out by the district police.

The judge said this court was not to decide question with regard to title and status of parties, but whether properties involved in suits fell within the ambit of the April 15, 2019 SC order, part of which had been reproduced in the Oct 25 order of civil judge.

Barrister Jawad Qureshi representing plaintiff Mohammad Rehan Shaikh tried to maintain that the April 15 order was passed wherein issue of police picket was involved but in this case it was the property that belonged to police and it was not solely for police picket; and the amount generated from property in question was used for welfare of police.

The court in its order observed that “though the case in which April 15 order was passed was with regard to police picket but operative part of directives given to IG Police Sindh is with regard to properties given for policing purpose thus scope of properties against which action has been directed is beyond the police picket”.

The judge was of the view that unless law/rules permit police to use property given to it for generating welfare funds, the action of defendants will fall beyond authority and use of property beyond policing purpose. “There is nothing on record that such permission was ever given to police to use property other than policing purpose or generating welfare funds,” said the order.

It noted that the “April 15 order has been passed by SC thus court inferior in status cannot pass any order which will create hindrance in proceedings of case before superior court”.

The court said that in view of above facts and circumstances, stay applications in three cases are dismissed.

The judge referred to Jawad Qureshi’s contention about the order passed by senior civil judge/rent controller, Ghotki, and said that the order was not binding upon this court. However, for academic questions, they have been considered and he found that ad interim referred order of Oct 12, 2021 passed in a civil suit have been solicited on ground that title lands of Railway Employees Cooperative Housing Society were excluded from SC’s order. Ghotki’s court did not mention the order passed by SC as is the case in hand.

Published in Dawn, October 26th, 2022