KARACHI, Dec 9: A bench of the Sindh High Court, comprising Justice S. A. Sarwana, sought on Monday the appearance of an official of the city government in the court on Jan 13 to explain the position about road-cuts, etc. pertaining to a 100-year-old mosque.

The bench was hearing an appeal under section 12 of the Sindh Waqf Properties Ordinance 1979 filed by Mohammed Ameen against Fateh Naseeb, Trustee of Jamia Masjid Ameer Sher Ali Khan/Bismillah Masjid and Rehmania Darul Uloom, the chief administrator Auqaf and the manager Auqaf of the district West.

The appellant maintains that the mosque and the Madressa is spread over more than 4,000 square yards, plot/survey no A-1, 3 S/176, in Asifabad Colony, Manghopir Road.

He maintains that the mosque was built by his ancestors in the 19th century in memory of an Afghan leader, Amir Sher, who stayed at the place for a short time with his militiamen.

The appellant maintains that the respondent, Fateh Naseeb, came to live in the area in 1980 and began coming to the mosque as a Namazi and later manipulated/managed to wrest control of the trust.

The Auqaf department later took over the control of the mosque and the Madressa, it was maintained by the appellant who impugns an order/judgment passed in 1994 by Yasmeen Abbasi, then district and sessions judge West, who ordered release of the mosque and the Madressa in favour of Fateh Naseeb, the respondent in the present appeal.

When the appeal came up for hearing, Fateh Naseeb (the respondent) challenged the limitation/boundaries of the plot on which the mosque and the Madressa exists. Pleading his case, he submitted that the Sindh Kacchi Abadi Authorities were trying to shorten the size of the plot on the pretext that road-cuts existed on the plot. He submitted that the locality was a kutcha abadi and a number of surveys had been undertaken in the past, but never was such an objection raised by the Sindh Kachchi Abadi Authority.

He prayed the court to summon the officials of the Authority to decide the issue.

K. M. Nadeem, advocate, appearing for the city government, undertook to ensure the presence of an official concerned on the next date of hearing.

The bench then, by consent, put off the hearing to Jan 13.—APP