KARACHI, Nov 28: Two identical petitions filed by M/s Cott Knit (Pvt) Ltd and Jamal Mohammed, through their counsel, K. M. Nadeem, came up for hearing before a division bench of the Sindh High Court.
The bench comprised Justice Ghulam Rabbani and Justice Ali Aslam Jafri.
The grievance of the petitioners was that they had bought four-acre plots through registered sale deed in 1995. Earlier, the plots were granted to Abdul Latif for value by the government of Sindh through the Land Utilization Department. After that, in accordance with the procedure established by law, the conversion of the use of the land in question and extension in their respective leases were also granted.
Recently, the staff of the respondent, KDA, came to the site where industrial concerns of the petitioners are located and started demolishing them without any prior notice to the petitioners. On inquiry the KDA staff claimed that such land was the property of the KDA, and the government had made double allotment. However, on persuasion the KDA staff left the site, threatening to come again and to cause total demolition.
The petitioners immediately wrote letter to the director-general of the KDA and the secretary Board of Revenue Sindh explaining their title and complaining against the alleged illegal act of the staff of KDA, but no response was received.
Consequently, petitions were filed seeking protection against the illegal threatened acts of KDA authorities. The court, at an earlier date after looking into the merits of the case, issued notices to the KDA and other respondents, including the Board of Revenue Sindh, simultaneously providing interim protection to the petitioners restraining the KDA from demolition.
The counsel for the KDA, Muzaffar Imam, appeared in the court and filed comments reiterating that the land in question was part of the land transferred by the government to the KDA and notified as such, and the grant in favour of any person was a case of double allotment.
Additional Advocate-General Abbas Ali was present on behalf of the government. The court told him to file comments on behalf of the Board of Revenue/provincial government with particular reference as to the import and implication of the Sindh Ordinance III of 2001, promulgated by the governor of Sindh causing cancellation of all such grants, conversions, etc. with retrospective effect since 1985.
The court further observed that prima facie sections 3 and 5 of the Ordinance were in conflict with each other. Once such leases of the land were cancelled, nothing was left for purposes of regularization as envisaged by section 5.
Primarily, counsel K. M. Nadeem submitted that propriety and possessory rights of citizens were fundamental rights guaranteed by article 23 of the Constitution and vested rights of the citizens could not be taken away by such law without affording opportunity of hearing to the effected parties.
Further hearing was adjourned for filing of comments by the provincial government.