IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

C.P. No. D-3178 of 2014

Before : Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar

Mr. Justice Fahim Ahmed Siddiqui

Nayab Haider……………………………………...…………………..Petitioner

Versus

Project Director, Lines Area Re-Development Project,

And 06 others……………………………………..……………….Respondents

Muhammad Sohail………………………………………..Applicant/intervener

Date of Hearing : 03.03.2017

Mr. Muhammad Ali Waris Lari, advocate for the petitioner

Mr. Haider Waheed, advocate for intervener

Mr. Osama Aftab, advocate for KDA

O R D E R

.-.-.-.-.-.

FAHIM AHMED SIDDIQUI, J: It is the case of the petitioner that he has inherited a plot bearing No. C-2/3/2 situated at Category C, in Sector 1, Lines Area Redevelopment Project (Gulshan-e-Zahoor). The other legal heirs have executed a relinquishment deed in favour of the petitioner and subsequently the name of the petitioner was entered in the relevant record. The formal possession of the plot was not handed over to the petitioner by the office of respondent No. 1. The petitioner sent a legal notice through TCS to respondent No. 1 in which he intimated that formerly his father succeeded in getting a plot No.Z-C-4, in Sector 8-A measuring 200 square yards in a bid but later on the subject plot was allotted to him as an alternate plot.

2. The petitioner further states that he came to know through the newspaper that the respondents are going to auction the subject plot along with other plots. The petitioner then filed the instant petition in which an interim order was passed on 12-06-2014, and the parties are directed to maintain status quo. On the directions of this Court, the Nazir of this Court also inspected the site and furnished report. As per the report of Nazir, at the time of inspection, the plot of the petitioner could not be verified through officials of respondents. However, the petitioner pointed out an open area and claimed before Nazir that it was his plot. The Nazir directed government officials to provide a copy of the map and other relevant documents, but they left without giving the same to him.

3. The petitioner has also moved an application for contempt of court (CMA No 10266/2015) against one Sohail for being encroaching upon the subject plot belonging to the petitioner.

4. Meanwhile, one Mohammad Sohail filed an application under Order I Rule 10 of CPC with a prayer to be impleaded as a respondent in the instant petition (CMA No. 22259/2016). In the supporting affidavit, the said Mohammad Sohail claimed that he is the lawful owner of plot No. C-2/1/2 and C-2/1/3, Sector I, KDA Scheme-35, Lines Area Redevelopment Project (hereinafter referred as 'the said properties'). It is the claim of applicant/intervener that the said properties were purchased by the predecessor in interest of the applicant/intervener in open auction. The applicant/ intervener subsequently acquired the said properties from the original allottee. According to applicant/intervener, the original allottee has completed all the formalities and paid all the dues, and after purchase, the transfer certificate was also issued in favour of the intervener. However, the respondent No. 1 prevented applicant/intervener from improving the said properties by denying No Objection Certificate. The applicant/I intervener negotiated with respondent No. 1 and wrote letters to respondent No 1, and subsequently, he filed suits bearing numbers 1576/2016 and 1577/2016, which are pending. The applicant/intervener further disclosed that it has come to his knowledge that the petitioner is claiming his plot bearing No. C-2/3/2 as situated in between the two plots of the applicant/intervener.

5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the entire material available before us. The counsel for the petitioner emphasized upon his claim against the respondents and submitted that his plot is situated at a place shown to the Nazir. The learned counsel for the applicant/intervener argued that the place, which was pointed out by the petitioner is a place where the said properties of applicants/intervener are situated.

6. The petitioner is seeking relief of declaration of ownership in respect of the subject plot bearing No C-2/3/2 and he is also seeking some directions against the respondents regarding auction proceedings. Besides, the applicable/intervener is also claiming that the place or a spot, which the petitioner has pointed out as his plot, actually belongs to him. The applicant/intervener also levelled allegations against the petitioner that he is trying to insert his plot in between the two plots owned by the applicant/intervener. The applicant/intervener also claimed that the plot of the petitioner might have been situated somewhere else but not at the place, which he had pointed out to the Nazir of this court. We consider that all these controversies require evidence and the same cannot be decided in the writ jurisdiction. This position of affairs demands that the parties may approach proper forum for leading the evidence so that the matter may be resolved once for all on merit. As such, the instant petition is disposed of with directions to the parties to seek their remedies before the proper forum if they are so advised.

JUDGE