ORDER SHEET

Judgment Sheet

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH KARACHI

Constitutional Petition No. D – 420 of 2016

Present :

1. Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar

2. Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rahman

Petitioner : Mst. Bilquees Begum,

through Mr. Muhammad Iqbal, Advocate.

Respondent : Malir Development Authority,

through Mr. Iqbal Khurram, Advocate.

J U D G M E N T

NADEEM AKHTAR, J. – The petitioner Mst. Bilquees Begum has impugned letter dated 22.12.2014 issued by the respondent Malir Development Authority to the Sub-Registrar Bin Qasim Town, instructing him not to entertain any transaction in respect of the petitioner’s immovable property ; namely, Plot No. R-28 measuring 120 sq. yds., Sector 17-B, Scheme 25-A, Shah Latif Town, Malir Development Authority, Karachi (‘the said property’), and to provide a detailed report in respect thereof for necessary action.

2. Relevant facts of the case, as averred in the petition, are that an indenture of lease for a period of 99 years in respect of the said property was executed and registered by the respondent on 13.02.2008 in favour of one Mst. Wall Jan, from whom the petitioner purchased the said property for valuable consideration through registered sale deed dated 06.08.2008. Thereafter, the said property was mutated in the name of the petitioner by the respondent vide mutation order dated 23.05.2009. All the original title documents as well as possession of the said property have remained with the petitioner. She decided to sell the said property, and for this purpose when documents were submitted by her with the Sub-Registrar concerned, she was informed that the respondent had issued the impugned letter in respect of the said property due to which the Sub-Registrar refused to entertain or register the said documents submitted for registration.

3. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent had no authority to issue the impugned letter to the Sub-Registrar or to interfere in the petitioner’s valuable vested rights, title and interest in the said property or to create any hindrance in the transfer / sale thereof. He further contended that the impugned letter has been issued in utter disregard of the well-settled principles of natural justice as the same was issued without notice to the petitioner and without affording any opportunity of hearing to her. He also contended that no reason whatsoever has been assigned in the impugned letter for issuing the directions contained therein.

4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the alleged title of the petitioner is based on bogus and fictitious documents, and as such she has no right either to retain the said property as owner or to sell the same to any third party. He further submitted that due to this reason the respondent issued the impugned letter in order to secure the interest of the real owner of the said property and to prevent the petitioner from committing further fraud in respect thereof.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully examined the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the sale deed in favour of the petitioner is a registered document and the same is still in the field. It is also an admitted position that the 99 years’ lease, under which the petitioner has acquired leasehold rights from the lessee, is still subsisting. In this view of the matter, the respondent had no authority to issue the impugned letter directing the Sub-Registrar not to entertain any transaction in respect of the said property. If the respondent was of the opinion that the title of the petitioner is defective or is based on forged or bogus documents, the civil Court of competent jurisdiction ought to have been approached for cancellation of the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner through due process of law. The respondent, or for that matter any aggrieved party, may still avail such remedy in accordance with law. We are of the firm view that as long as the registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner is in the field, her title or ownership in respect of the said property cannot be denied or questioned by anyone, not even by the respondent. Admittedly, the impugned letter was issued by the respondent without notice to the petitioner and without affording her opportunity of hearing, and also without disclosing therein the reason for such action. The impugned letter is liable to be struck down and declared illegal on this ground alone.

6. We have noticed that the respondent had stated in the impugned letter that the matter is subjudice before the competent authority of the respondent (MDA), and due to this reason, directions were issued in the impugned letter to the Sub-Registrar concerned. We may observe that the very basis of the impugned letter was misconceived as a matter is deemed to be subjudice when it is pending adjudication before any competent Court of law or any judicial or quasi-judicial authority / forum established under any statute. If any internal inquiry was being conducted by the respondent in respect of the said property, the same could not be termed as proceedings subjudice before it.

7. Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by us on 04.05.2015, whereby this petition was allowed with no order as to costs.

J U D G E