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
JUDGE