KARACHI, April 5: The Sindh High Court has asked the provincial board of revenue to produce the record of 76 acres of coastal land known as 'French Beach' on Thursday.
A division bench comprising Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Amir Hani Muslim passed the order after hearing an appellant's counsel on Friday. The appellant has challenged the dismissal of his suit claiming ownership of the land by inheritance.
He said his forefathers were granted the land at Deh Lal Bakhar, adjacent to Hawkesbay, by the British Indian government as far back as 1871. The property was transferred to them by registration and mutation subsequently.
The appellant said his and other heirs' right was recognized and acknowledged by the successor government of Pakistan. When the provincial revenue commissioner communicated to the collector of Karachi his approval for sale of 70.28 acres of land adjacent to Quaid-i-Azam Mohammad Ali Jinnah for agricultural purposes, a 10-acre corridor was demarcated between the two stretches to allow the owners access to a well and spread out the fishing nets for drying.
It was only in July 2000 that the claimants received notice from the Sindh board of revenue that the land belonged to the provincial government and that they had illegally constructed huts on it.
Contesting the claim before a single judge, the provincial government submitted that the claimants were only granted 'khori' right under which the fishermen of the area were allowed to use the land to dry their nets, stack their haul and repair their boats on the seashore.
Such permission was normally granted to fishermen free. The right is nothing more than a licence under Section 52 of the Easement Act. The heirs of the licencees were, however, using the land as a coastal resort renting out their unlawfully constructed huts to foreigners. That was why the area was known as 'French Beach'.
Justice Shabbir Ahmed, who heard the plaint, observed that the entire claim of the plaintiff was based on a mere licence. 'Licence' has been defined in Section 52 of the Easement Act as 'a grant of a mere right to do upon the property of another something that would, in the absence of such right, be unlawful. The suit was dismissed accordingly.
An appeal against the dismissal was moved by the plaintiff. The appellate bench asked Additional Advocate-General M. Ahmed Pirzada to ensure that the record of the disputed land was produced by the board of revenue on the next date of hearing on April 8.
DEMOLITION STAYED: Justice Mushir Alam, meanwhile, ordered status quo in respect of Kahkashan Shopping Mall constructed on plot number 172-N, Block 2, main Tariq Road, PECHS. The building is among the 18 structures earmarked by the Karachi Building Control Authority for partial demolition for gross violation of the building rules.
According to the KBCA, the basement of the building meant for car parking has been sold out for use as commercial premises. The absence of a ramp shows that the owner/builder had no intention of providing parking. He also built a mezzanine floor and a penthouse in violation of the approved design.
Plaintiff Mohammad Ali Tahir, who claimed to have purchased the building from its original owner, approached the court with a request for permanent injunction against the KBCA.
He also sought an interim order in his favour. Justice Mushir Alam issued the KBCA a notice for April 21 and ordered status quo in the meanwhile. The SHC nazir was asked to inspect the site and the title documents and submit a report before the next date.
REGULARIZATION: A division bench directed the Faisal Cantonment Board to consider regularization of the violative second floor of the building raised on plot number C-17, Block B, KDA Officers Housing Society, or demolish it within a month if the regularization plan was not acceptable. The board was also asked to remove any encroachments made on the park adjoining the violative building.
The directions were issued following an inspection report submitted by the SHC nazir confirming the KDA Officers Housing Society allegation in a petition. The report said the owner of the plot had built the second floor in violation of the approved design and that the structure encroached upon an amenity plot meant for park.
Dear visitor, the comments section is undergoing an overhaul and will return soon.