ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH,

CIRCUIT COURT, HYDERABAD.

C.P No.D-103 of 2012

DATE        ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE

1. For katcha peshi.

2. For hearing of MA No.425/2012.

3. For hearing of MA No.1382/2014.

15-04-2015.

Mr. Abdul Hai Khan Pathan advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Mukhtiar Ahmed Khanzada State Counsel.

Mr. Sher Shamshuddin Sahito advocate for respondents No.2 to 4 along with Muhammad Urs Dawach, Assistant Director SBCA Hyderabad.

Mr. Wali Muhammad Khoso advocate for applicant / intervener along with intervener.

The claim of the petitioner is that he is owner of plot No. A/37, situated at Samanabad Housing Scheme, Qasimabad Hyderabad. He submitted building plan for constructing building ground plus one floor to the respondent No.3 for approval. Since authority concerned raised some objection, therefore, the plan was returned back to the petitioner. In the meanwhile, petitioner deviated from the earlier plan and only constructed six shops and thereafter the revised plan was submitted for approval but according to the petitioner despite fulfilling all requisite formalities, the respondents No.2 to 4 failed to issue the approved building plan for which the petitioner has approached this Court.

Today Mr. Muhammad Uris Dawach, Assistant Director, Sindh Building Control Authority, Hyderabad is present and he submits that revised building plan has been submitted by the petitioner on 12-01-2015 and the authority has processed the building plan for approval and if any objection is found, the same shall be communicated to the petitioner for removing the objection.                 

One Abdul Jabbar has also moved application under Order 1 rule 10 CPC, in which he has stated that the petitioner has illegally raised construction over plot No. A/37 and he has encroached upon 3 to 4 inches strip of 40 feet of his plot No. A/38.

Since the question of approved building plan is already pending with the respondent No.2 to 4, therefore, it is for them to decide the objections if any before issuing approval. The petition is disposed of along with listed applications with the directions to the respondents No.2 to 4 to communicate objection if any, to the petitioner within a week for compliance and thereafter the approved building plan will be processed in accordance with law. While deciding objection the respondents No.2 to 4 will also provide opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and intervener Abdul Jabbar. The entire exercise shall be completed within two months.

JUDGE

JUDGE

A.C