KARACHI, March 6: The Sindh High Court expressed its surprise on Thursday at “contradictions” in the official stance on the ownership of the land falling in the purview of the Lyari Expressway project and adjourned the hearing of the affected occupants’ petitions till March 25 for clarification.
A division bench, comprising Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice S. Aslam Ali Jafri, observed that the provincial government had all along been taking the position that the land needed for the project was its own and the city government and its predecessor, the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, had no authority to lease it out.
Now it had transpired that part of the land belonged to the federal government and that the city government had been issuing allotment letters.
Advocate-General Anwar Mansoor Khan said a recent city government lease document produced by one of the petitioners did not seem authentic. However, he would inquire into the matter in consultation with the officials concerned. It seemed that the case of the lessees of PIB colony and the federal government land and those of kutchi abadis stood on different footings. He said the lists of the petitioners falling in different categories would be submitted in the court.
Appearing for a large number of petitioners, Advocate Shaukat Ali Shaikh submitted that lease letters had been issued by the KMC and its successor, the city government, had been doing so even during the pendency of the case.
Advocate Ilyas Khan submitted that his clients living in Hassan Aulia village had lease documents dating as far back as to 1907.
Another division bench, consisting of Justice Mohammad Roshan Essani and Justice Anwar Zaheer Jamali, issued notices to the Saddar Town Nazim and city government officials on a petition agitating demolition of a shop in Hoti Market, Guzrabad, ostensibly for developing a park. Advocates Nihal Hashmi and Humair Hamza appeared for the petitioner.
Hearing put off: The Sindh High Court adjourned on Thursday the hearing of the Sindh Medical College students’ case to March 18 at the request of the petitioners’ counsel.
The counsel informed a division bench, comprising Justice S. Ahmed Sarwana and Justice M. Mujibullah Siddiqui, that they had received copies of the comments submitted by the respondent college authorities but needed more time to prepare their rejoinder.
The college authorities said, in their comments, they never issued “offer letters” to the petitioner students. Offer letters were issued to the candidates who fulfilled the requirements of admission and whose names appeared on the merit list. Even if any candidate was issued an “offer letter,” all admissions to the college were provisional and subject to the verification of their documents, including permanent residence and domicile certificates and mark sheets. If the certificates turned out to be fake, admission of the delinquent candidate was liable to be cancelled any time.
They said most of the petitioners deposited their dues, according to the receipts produced by them, six or eight months after the finalization of admissions and commencement of the 1997-98 academic year, which was not permissible. All quotas, including the chief minister’s quota, had been abolished by the Supreme Court much earlier. Seats were reserved only for handicapped and foreign students under the technical assistance programme.
Another six expelled students have approached the court, raising the number of petitioners to 49.