HYDERABAD: Two of the five builders whose suits against demolition of structures on their housing schemes were dismissed by a senior civil judge of Kotri on Friday, obtained a restraining order from the additional sessions judge-II of Kotri on Saturday.

M/s Jamshoro Educational City and M/s Ameen Builders and Developers filed their appeal against the civil judge’s order through advocate Raja Jawad Sahar.

The sessions judge restrained the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) director general, Sehwan Development Authority (SDA) director general and other respondents from taking any coercive action against the appellants and issued notices to them for July 31. The appellants submitted in court that the trial court had rejected plaints in haste. Their counsel claimed that the ‘mala fide’ [intention] on the part of the SBCA was apparent as approval of schemes from the competent authority ie SDA for the sale of plots was there. He argued that approval, no-objection certificates and payment of prescribed fees by appellants/plaintiffs were not denied. He said that the SBCA maintained that the SDA had no authority to give approval for the schemes.

He stated that a written statement was filed in court by the SBCA but not a single notice addressed to the appellants was produced, which reflected mala fide [intentions] on its part.

The counsel pointed out that the written statement even did not mention a single word about the housing scheme of M/s Jamshoro Educational City but the trial court allowed the [SBCA] application and rejected the suits. He submitted that the trial court also failed to understand the plea of plaintiffs that they challenged the authority and applicability of the SBCA on their housing schemes; so the question of issuance of notice under Section 20-A by plaintiffs did not arise because it was relevant only when the said housing scheme(s) belonged to the SBCA.

He further pointed out that the SBCA did not approach the SDA when the latter placed an advertisement in newspapers in Feb 2017 requiring the relevant department to approach it for approvals. He claimed that the trial court failed to appreciate that controversy over powers or authority could be determined after adducing evidence.

He said that the defendants had demolished some houses next to the appellants’ schemes, therefore, his clients apprehended that such action could be initiated in their schemes. He said that buyers of plots had got their layout plans approved from the SBCA which showed that it had accepted the approval of the plotting scheme.

He prayed to the court to set aside the civil judge’s July 21 order as unlawful.

Published in Dawn, July 23rd, 2017