HYDERABAD: Anti-Encroachment Tribunal Judge Zulfiqar Ali Solangi on Tuesday dismissed a suit filed by Bahria Town Karachi (BTK) against the notice issued to it for dispossession from the 893 acres of land in Jamshoro’s Deh Mole.

According to copy of the tribunal’s order, BTK through its officer, Zulfiqar Ahmed Memon, filed a suit through Nasrullah Korai Advocate against the Senior Member Board of Revenue and Jamshoro’s deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner and mukhtiarkar, challenging the notice issued by the mukhtiarkar.

The plaintiff prayed the court to declare that the “land approximately 893 acres in Deh Mole in possession of plaintiff is private property and does not fall under definition of public property”.

The plaintiff termed the notice dated May 9, 2025 illegal and unlawful, and sought its suspension. The BTK prayed that the respondents should be restrained from dispossessing the plaintiff from its lawful occupation and possession of the land.

According to the suit, the 893 acres formed part of the BTK, which was served the May 9 order under Section 3(1) of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act 2010, alleging illegal possession of un-surveyed state land and directing removal of encroachment within seven days.

BTK officer Zulfiqar Memon termed order illegal and based on allegations unsupported by proof. He said the land was acquired through unchallenged transactions with private individuals and did not fall within ‘public property’ definition under Act 2010. He maintained that unless defendants proved the land to be state property, no action under the Act was sustainable.

Mukhtiarkar Thano Bula Khan, in his para-wise comments, said that the plaintiff encroached upon the state land and that the May 9 order was issued against wrongful possession of 893-20 acres of public property. He said that pursuant to Supreme Court’s order dated Nov 8, 2023, Sindh government had constituted a committee on Nov 14, 2023 jointly headed by the DCs of Malir and Jamshoro with members from Survey of Pakistan and revenue authorities. It was directed to conduct a survey on following terms of references: The committee shall clearly specify land in actual possession of BTK; assess additional land encroached by BTK, if any; consider aspects of land purchased by BTK from private landowners; submit report accompanied by photographs and topography (Google map); complete entire exercise and submit its report within four days.

The report confirmed that in Deh Mole, the BTK was in possession of 2,028-18 acres and 2,222-18 acres and of them 893-20 acres were in excess, not recorded in BTK’s name. It said that 2,222-18 acres were un-surveyed khet-wise lands based on ‘haq qabza’ entries reconstructed after old records were burnt in 2007 unrest. It mentioned that as per land utilisation department notification of Nov 16,1992, all ‘haq qbza’ rights after 1947 constitute state land.

The report said Deh Mole measures 225,284-06 acres out of which 221,307-10 acres were protected forestland. Divisional forest officer confirmed that 2,028 acres were under BTK’s possession and fall within the protected forestland. Consequently, said the report, BTK was directed to remove encroachment and stop construction within seven days.

The tribunal mentioned that the “para-wise comments emphasise that plaintiff’s plea of private ownership was misconceived. Survey conducted under SC’s directives conclusively identifies land as un-surveyed state land. The committee and survey team found 893-20 acres in unauthorised possession which was encroachment on public land.

“The contention that no lawful delegation exists was unfounded. The claim that SC didn’t address this land is untenable and any private transactions cited by plaintiff were irrelevant as haq qabza entries post 1947 were void in law and confer no ownership. “Plaintiff has failed to prove otherwise because official records and survey report conclusively establish this land as state property. The comments said order was lawful and supported by evidence. “Mukhtiarkar prayed the court to dismiss the suit with costs and the impugned order be upheld”.

The court in its order noted that the language of notice indicated that it was in the nature of an inquiry and that further proceedings under Section 3(4) of the Act 2010 were yet to be carried out by concerned Mukhtiarkar, who intended to hear plaintiff and pass an order under Section 3(4) of the Act 2010.

But plaintiff, the court said, neither appeared before mukhtiarkar nor produced record of occupied property nor filed nay grievance petition in response to notice under Section 3(1) of Act 2010 which clearly mentioned that if plaintiff was dissatisfied with order, he could prefer a review petition before the mukhtiarkar within four days.

The order said SC had already decided the issue forming subject matter of impugned notice and said notice was issued in compliance with SC’s directives.

It said that the tribunal was empowered to take up issue of maintainability of the case at any stage.

The order said that the plaintiff has failed to make out a case for declaratory relief and the suit, therefore, stands dismissed along with all pending applications and interim order passed on May 26.

Published in Dawn, September 17th, 2025