ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P. No.D-284 of 2010

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

For Kacha Peshi

For hearing of M.A.No.1049/2010.

12-03-2015.

Mr. Hakim Ali Siddiqui, Advocate for petitioners

Mr. Rafique Ahmed Advocate for respondent No.2

Mr. Mukhtar Ahmed Khanzada, State counsel

Mr. Zulfiquar Ali Rajput Standing counsel

Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that Hyderabad Railway Employees Cooperative Housing Society was leased out an area of 38.68 Acres in Deh Gidu Bandar Taluka Latifabad, Deh Foujga Taluka City, Deh Serri Taluka Qasimabad and Deh Narayajani of Taluka Hyderabad with approval of the President of Pakistan which was published in Pakistan Railway Gazette No.10 published in May 1988 and lease was also registered. The said society sub-divided the survey No.222, out of which petitioner No.1 has been leased out plot No.1 block C-1 measuring 3600 Sq.Ft, petitioner No.2 has been leased out plot No.6 block-D-2 measuring 3915 Sq.Ft, petitioner No.3 has been leased out plot No.6 block-C-6 measuring 3906 Sq.Ft, petitioner No.4 has been leased out Plot No.6 Block-C-1 measuring 400 Sq.yards.

The petitioner has prayed that the act of respondents No.1 to 4 by demolishing the boundary wall is illegal. They have also prayed that said respondents be restrained from causing any interference in the construction work

carrying out by the petitioners. Though the copy of lease has been filed alongwith the petition but main emphases of learned counsel is letter issued by the Cantonment Executive Officer Hyderabad dated 20.1.2009 to the Secretary Hyderabad Railway employees Cooperative Housing Society whereby permission was granted to the Society to raise boundary wall at survey No.222 for the protection of land of Railway Employees Cooperative Housing Society Hyderabad so that their piece of land may be safeguarded from the illegal encroachers. At the very outset we are of the firm view that this permission was not granted to any individual for raising construction but it was granted to the Railway Employees Cooperative Housing Society Hyderabad to protect and prevent the land from encroachers.

The petitioners in para No.11 of the petition themselves admitted that they have decided to raise construction on their leased plots but respondents No.2 & 3 are interfering and obstructing the said construction work. For raising construction it is necessary to apply for approval of building plan in accordance with Cantonment Act as well as Building Rules and Regulations. The permission available at page No.71 is nothing to do with the approval of building plan or any individual plot but it is limited to the permission for raising boundary by the Society for protecting the land from encroachers and this permission cannot be deemed to have been granted to any individual lessee for raising construction on his leased plot.

The respondents No.2 in the comments clearly stated that any individual can apply for approval of building plan in accordance with rules and

regulations. The learned counsel for the Cantonment argued that petitioners intend to raise construction without approved building plan by the Cantonment Board and MEO Hyderabad. He further submits that as and when petitioners will file their case for approval of the building plan, the same will be considered and approved in accordance with law.

Let the petitioners apply to the Cantonment Board for approval of building plan for raising constructions on their own leased plots and if any application for approval of building plan is submitted to respondents No.2 & 3, the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law within a period of 60-days.

Petition is disposed of accordingly alongwith pending application.

JUDGE

ars