| Decision |
The Sindh High Court dismissed the constitutional petition filed by the petitioners, declaring it frivolous and ordering it to be dismissed with special costs. The court held that the petitioners failed to approach the High Court with clean hands as they were aware of the cancellation of their plot allotments under the Sindh Goathabad (Housing Scheme) Act, 1987. The authorities had followed due legal process in canceling the allotments, and the petitioners' claims of unlawful actions by the authorities were unfounded. The court emphasized that the petitioners did not present any new or undisclosed facts and were not entitled to any equitable relief. As a result, the petition was dismissed, reinforcing the enforcement of lawful procedures and the legitimacy of the authorities' actions. |
| Summary |
In the significant Legal case of Constitutional Petition No.D-356 of 2004, the Sindh High Court delivered its decision on September 14, 2004, addressing the dispute between the petitioners led by FAQIR MUHAMMAD and the respondents including the Secretary of the Government of Sindh and the Board of Revenue, Karachi. The core of the case revolved around the cancellation of plot allotments under the Sindh Goathabad (Housing Scheme) Act, 1987. Petitioners, asserting their rightful ownership of plots through sanctioned Sanads, Form-II, and Site plans, challenged the government's decision to revoke these allotments, thereby labeling themselves as lawful occupants rather than encroachers.
Represented by prominent lawyers Ghulam Abbas Soomro, Ahmed Pirzada, and Manzoor Ahmed, the petitioners contended that the authorities' actions to demolish existing constructions on their plots were illegal and beyond their jurisdiction. They argued that their possession of official documents confirmed their lawful titles, and thus, the government's steps to treat them as encroachers were unfounded and detrimental to their interests.
However, the court meticulously examined the merits of the petition. It was revealed through detailed inquiries that the allotments in question had been legally canceled by the then Deputy Commissioner of Malir, Karachi, under Section 6 of the Sindh Goathabad (Housing Scheme) Act, 1987. This cancellation, documented in an order dated November 27, 1998, followed all necessary legal formalities, restoring the disputed land to government ownership. Furthermore, a portion of this land was earmarked for the construction of a bus terminal and subsequently handed over to the Malir Development Authority, Karachi. The court pointed out that over five years had passed since the cancellation, and this information was disseminated to all concerned officers, including the Mukhtiarkar of Sindh Goathabad Malir, Karachi.
The petitioners acknowledged the cancellation order but claimed ignorance of its content and its implications on their plots. The court, however, was not persuaded by this claim. It highlighted that the decision to cancel the allotments was a matter of public record and had been communicated through official channels, making it unreasonable for the petitioners to be unaware of such a significant legal action taken against them. The court emphasized the principle of 'clean hands,' stating that the petitioners had not approached the High Court with transparency and honesty, thereby undermining their entitlement to equitable relief.
Moreover, the court noted the adverse impact of the petitioners' actions on public projects, particularly the construction of the bus terminal. The prolonged litigation and the suppression of critical facts had resulted in delays and encroachments, affecting the efficiency and progress of essential infrastructure development. The court concluded that the petitioners' reliance on documents lacking legal standing and their failure to present undisclosed facts rendered the petition frivolous.
In delivering its verdict, the Sindh High Court reinforced the necessity of adhering to legal procedures and respecting the jurisdiction of competent authorities. By dismissing the constitutional petition with special costs, the court underscored the importance of presenting genuine and substantiated claims in legal forums. This decision serves as a precedent, highlighting the judiciary's role in ensuring that legal challenges are grounded in truth and fairness, thereby maintaining the integrity of legal processes and governmental actions.
This case also illustrates the broader implications of legal disputes over land allotments and governmental authority in urban development projects. It underscores the delicate balance between individual rights and public interest, emphasizing that while citizens have the right to defend their lawful claims, such defenses must align with established legal frameworks and verified evidence. The court's decision serves as a reminder of the critical role of transparency, due process, and legal accountability in resolving disputes and fostering trust between citizens and governmental institutions. |