ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

Suit No.2786 of 2016

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

DATE                  ORDER WITH SIGNATURES OF JUDGE(S)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For objection on Nazir’s report.

Dated: 31.08.2018

Mr. Khan Muhammad for plaintiff.

Mr. Arif Raza for defendant No.1.

Mr. Aal-e-Maqbool Shah, Addl. A.G.

Mr. Perwez Ahmed Mastoi, AAG.

Mr. Noor Alam Khatri for Secretary LU.

-.-.-

The objections filed by defendant No.1 are taken on record in terms of which request for appointment of Nazir/Commissioner is made by placing reliance on the concerned Mukhtiarkar report, and the Court has been informed that the said Mukhtiarkar did not find and sign or sight of the village namely Abdul Ghaffar Gabole or any other village at the site.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that only one visit of Nazir/commissioner has been made to the site, however a number of objections from time to time are filed. His assertion was immediately repudiated by the learned Addl. A.G. as the very title on the basis of which the plaintiffs claim to own the land being Sanads available between pages 59 to 81 of the file are void as they are in respect of land measuring 800, 750, 780, 670, 700, 725, 650 and 677 yards respectively which could not be granted under section 3 of Sindh Gothabad Scheme Act, 1987 as the said Act only empowers grant of land not exceeding 2 Ghuntas and that too for people who already were residing on the same land.

Learned counsel for the plaintiffs at this juncture stated that the said Goth/Village was sanctioned by the concerned Deputy Commissioner vide his order dated 20.03.2013 and having been sanctioned the said Goth, these Sanads were issued. However, this assertion was again challenged by learned Addl. A.G. who submitted that Deputy Commissioner had no power to sanction Goth after the embargo on any such sanction being imposed by the apex Court in Suo-Moto Petition No.16 of 2011.

At this juncture counsel for defendant No.1 submitted that defendant No.1 was granted lease for 30 years in respect of the said land to use it for poultry farming and that lease having been expired in the year 2013 was not renewed by the Board of Revenue, however upon representation of the members of the Poultry Farms Association, the matter reached to the apex Court where an order dated 20.06.2018 was passed, which in paragraph 2 sought views from the Board of Revenue on the submissions made by the Association that if a cost of Rs.5 lacs per acre is charged Association’s members would be willing to have their leases extended for further term of 30 years.

Learned counsel representing the Land Utilization Department submits that the Board as yet has not decided the matter as to the acceptance or refusal of the proposal of extension of lease terms for poultry farm land till date, however, he would consult with the department in order to obtain latest view.

With these observations as it is highly contentious matter in which a number of applications are pending, office is directed to fix this case for hearing of all applications and counter/rejoinder thereon be exchanged between the counsel before that date.

To come up on 18.09.2018.

                                                                                    J U D G E