2004 PLP 392 (CLC)

Constitutional Petition No.D‑1438 of 2002 Messrs AL‑Habib Textile Bleaching Mills through Mr. Abdus Salam Baloch Advocate. The petitioner Messrs Al‑Habib Textile Bleaching Mills claims to be a registered firm having been established in the year 1949 having started its business actively on a piece of land measuring 4850 sq. yds. in front of Plot Nos. 175 and 176 in the belt of Lyari River at Garden West Karachi which was later temporarily leased out to the petitioner by the Collector of Karachi in the year 1956. The lease was extended subsequently, and it included Survey Nos. 156, 157, 174 and 175 at Garden West. Lease is registered in the name of Haji Abdul Hamid who is one of the partners of the petitioner firm. Plot bearing Survey No. 156 is facing Lyari River whereas Plots bearing Nos. 157 and 174 and situated in the backside. Petitioner claims that the aforesaid temporarily leased out plot of land remained in possession and utilization of the petitioner for more than 50 years till July, 2002. The petitioner having apprehensions of being effected by the proposed construction of Lyari Expressway has prayed for permanent injunction restraining the respondents not to interfere with peaceful possession of his land viz. Plots Nos. 156 and 175 except in due course of law and without initiating acquisition proceedings. The petitioner has prayed for compensation at par with other multi‑storeyed residential buildings falling within the alignment of Lyari Expressway. The legality and validity of the lease‑deed and claim of the petitioners has been disputed in view of the legal grounds/objections as taken in other petitions. Constitutional Petition No.D‑595 of 2002 Aurangzeb Shah and 17 others through Mr. Shaukat Ali Shaikh. Petitioner Aurangzeb Shah and seventeen others have filed this petition praying therein that the proposed action of the respondents regarding demolition/snatching of the, properties belonging to the petitioners without process of Land Acquisition Act be declared to be without lawful authority and jurisdiction. They have further prayed that the respondents, their agents, servants and subordinates be refrained from demolishing the houses of the petitioner and depriving them of their properties. The petitioners claim to have settled in PIB Cooperative Housing Society after migration to Pakistan and they were allotted various plots in their possession which are likely to be utilized for construction of Lyari Expressway as the City District Government without adopting the procedure as laid down in Land Acquisition Act is trying to dispossess the petitioner and demolish their properties. In support of their case they have produced the copies of the lease‑deeds in their favour and in certain cases in favour of their predecessor‑in- interest. Counter‑affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No.1 denying the case of the petitioners and stated that the petitioners are illegal occupants and have encroached upon the Government land. No valid and proper lease could be granted in favour, of the petitioners and Lyari Expressway which is a project of national interest is being constructed for the benefit of the people of Karachi at large. It is a Federal Government Project which shall remove the traffic, hazard and reduce the load of big truck and heavy trailers which have to pass from roads and residential and commercial area of the city. It is contended that it is a project of national importance. The Federal Government is a necessary party which has not been joined as respondent in this petition and in its absence no effective judgment/order can be passed in this petition. The title of the petitioners over the land to be utilized for the purpose of this Expressway project has been disputed. However, at one stage the learned Advocate‑General, Sindh had made an offer that the Government has decided to provide a plot of 80 sq. yds. and cash of Rs.50,000 to each family likely to be affected due to, the construction of the road/Expressway. The petitioners have made a grievance that the petitioners being the lawful owners of the plots in their possession cannot be treated at par with unauthorized occupants who too are being provided alternate plot of 80 sq. yds. and Rs.50,000 in each case. We find force in this contention that an unauthorized occupant of a piece of land/plot having raised unauthorized construction over the same cannot be treated at par with those who are occupying the land in question on the basis of legal title documents like lease‑deeds which are still intact and have not been legally and validly cancelled so far and appear to have raised construction with the approval of the competent authority. Their case is definitely on a different footing in comparison to that of the unauthorized occupants/encroachers. However, we, feel that Lyari Expressway is a project of national importance and need of the time any restraint order to stop the construction work of this project shall not be appropriate under the exercise of jurisdiction in these proceedings. The validity, genuineness and legality of the titles being claimed by the petitioners cannot be assessed and scrutinized by us. While dismissing these petitions we shall leave it open for the petitioners to approach the concerned authorities for compensation for their properties to be utilized for this project in accordance with law subject to scrutiny of the title of the petitioners and the nature of the construction being lawfully or unlawfully raised by them. Constitutional Petition No.D‑454 of 2002 Mst. Fazelat through Mr. Abid Hussain, Advocate. The petitioner has stated that she is widow and owner of a house situated on Plot No. 1423, Shershah Colony, Karachi, by virtue of a lease‑deed executed on 19‑1‑1993 by the Metropolitan Corporation of City Karachi, in order to regularize the authorized possession. She claims to be in occupation and possession of the said plot for last many years and has raised a double‑storeyed house with electricity and gas therein she is apprehending demolition of her house for the purpose of construction of Lyari Expressway by increasing width of the road from 50 feet to 100 feet unlawfully and illegally. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that proposed action of demolition of her valuable property be declared to be illegal and without lawful authority and the respondents Nos.1 to 6 or anyone claiming through them be restrained from demolishing the house of the petitioner. In the objections/counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.1 it is stated that Katchi Abadies Act, 1987 is not applicable in case of the petitioner who is an encroacher and has raised construction on the Government land without any title or ownership. The construction is illegal and without any approved plan hence the petitioner is not entitled for any relief. It has been further stated that land in question is on the embankment of Lyari River which is required for construction of Expressway. Katchi Abadies Authority did not comply with section 21 of the Act. The alleged lease was executed by Deputy Director, Katchi Abadi Authority, KMC, who was not authorized to execute any such lease in respect of land which was not owned by KMC. Constitutional Petition No.D‑1064 of 2002 Muhammad Haroon and 13 others through Mr. Shaukat Ali Shaikh, Advocate. The petitioners claim to be settled in Bakkar' Goth and Palari Goth near Super Highway which according to them have been regularized by the Government of Sindh in view of the orders of this Court in Suit No.783 of 1991. They are apprehending demolition of the buildings constructed by them on various plots granted to them forcibly and except in due process of law and without payment of compensation. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that such action on part of the respondents be declared to be without lawful authority and the respondents be restrained from demolishing the properties of the petitioners except in accordance with law and till finalization of the compensation for such demolition. In support of their case they have placed on record regularization order of Village Palari, Sector No.12 of Scheme No.33. Malir, and various sale‑deeds showing transactions in respect of the said properties. Some challans in respect of the payments made by some of the petitioners have also been placed on record. On behalf of the respondents it has been contended that the grants in favour of the petitioners are illegal and unlawful and failed to confer any rights upon them. It has been further contended that the petitioners have managed some forged documents in their favour. Neither they are lawful owners of the various pieces of land in their possession nor they have raised and constructed buildings in accordance with law after getting the building plans approved by the Karachi Building Control Authority, hence they are not entitled for any compensation. Constitutional Petition No.D‑466 of 2002 Ali Sher Khan and 56 others through Mr. Maqbool‑ur‑Rehman. Advocate. The case of the petitioners as disclosed in their petition is that they are residents of Plot No. 183, Gharibnawaz Colony, Old Golimar, Karachi and they have spent huge amount on construction and development of their properties on the said land. They have paid lease money and such lease‑deeds have been executed in their favour by the Directorate of Katchi Abadies, Metropolitan Corporation City of Karachi, to regularize their unauthorized possession. The petitioners claim to have settled on this piece of land since long back and the leases in their favour were granted at various times right from 1984 to 2001 and valid and legal transfers of the lease‑hold rights in certain cases have also taken place. They are apprehending their dispossession and demolition of their properties at the hands of respondents Nos.3 to 7 hence they have prayed for a direction that the said respondents be restrained from demolishing the valuable properties of the petitioners except in accordance with law and without payment of adequate compensation. On the other hand the case of the respondents is that the petitioners are encroachers and unauthorized occupants who have raised constructions without any approval from the concerned authority viz. KBCA and the lease documents in their favour have no sanctity in the eye of law as the persons who have executed such lease‑deeds had no authority to dispose of the Government land in such a manner in violation of the law and even otherwise Katchi Abadies Act does not stand attracted. Constitutional Petition No.D‑621 of 2002 Jan Muhammad Sajid and 107 others through Mr. M. Ilyas Khan Advocate. It is the case of the petitioners that they are residing in has Hassan Aulia Village, Old Golimar, Karachi, for last more than 50 years before the birth of Pakistan. The petitioners and their ancestors occupies a piece of land near Meva Shah Graveyard, commonly known as Hassan Aulia Village nearly about 200 years back and now the population of the said village is more than 50000 people. On 23rd October, 1995 they came to know through newspaper that Chief Minister Sindh has ordered for regularization of leases in favour of residents of the said Village. They applied for the leases which were granted to them and they have constructed their Pakka houses. This village according to the petitioners is situated in the North of Lyari Naddi (River) Initially in the year 1986 KDA had launched a scheme known as Lyari Development Scheme and a road was to be constructed from Mauripur Bridge upto Super Highway but now the petitioners have come to know that National Highway Authority is, going to construct a road/expressway known as Lyari Expressway and their houses are likely to be demolished as the result of changed in the original plan prepared by KDA. The petitioners claimed to have spent millions of rupees on construction of their respective houses/buildings with RCC construction and in some cases multi storeyed. Since the campaign of demolition has started as such the petitioners have prayed for a declaration that the proposed action of the respondents to demolish the properties of the petitioners in Hassan Aulia Village be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. They have further prayed that respondents Nos.2 to 9 or anyone claiming through them, be restrained from demolishing the properties of the petitioners. They have further prayed for a direction that Lyari Expressway be constructed in accordance with the approved plan of 1986 prepared under Lyari Development Scheme No.44. The case of the respondents as disclosed in the counter‑affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents is based on the same pleas as taken in defence in respect of other petitions. It has been further pleaded that alleged predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners had no locus standi to sell the public property. The lease in respect thereof has been managed by the petitioners through the connivance of the subordinate staff of defunct KMC unlawfully and illegally. The land in question is required for construction of a Highway which is a project of national importance and is to be constructed on both banks of Lyari River Bed starting from Zero. Mile Highway to Mauripur Bridge. A large number of encroachments have been removed by the respondents. The legality and validity of the lease‑deeds in favour of the petitioners or their predecessor‑in‑interest have also been questioned. Constitutional Petition No.D‑1262 of 2002 Muhammad Rafiq and 16 others through Mr. Shaukat Ali Shaikh, Advocate. The petitioners claimed that they are settled in Old Area of Karachi known as Goharabad, Near University Road, PIB Colony, Karachi, KMC has issued registered lease‑deeds for 99 years under MLO 110, dated 20‑12‑1979 in their favour. They have come to know that their houses and other structure are likely to be demolished due to the construction of Lyari Expressway. They contended that they are not unauthorized occupants or in possession illegally but having a legal and valid title in their favour. The petitioners are being harassed by the respondents and so far no notice has been served upon them showing the intention of the respondents to acquire the land in question as per law. They have further pleaded that they have come to know that initially a 50 feet wide road was planned to be constructed but now it is being extended to more than 300 feet in width to give some part of the land to builders mafia. They have claimed that they cannot be dispossessed forcibly except through acquisition proceedings under the law of the land and subject to payment of the market value of the land plus 15% compulsory acquisition charges. They have prayed that respondents be restrained from taking the law in their hands. The stand taken by the respondents is that there are no valid and genuine lease‑deeds in favour of the petitioners, the persons/authority who executed such lease‑deeds was not competent to dispose of the land which did not belong to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation particularly in the absence of any scheme approved by the Government under section 19 of the Katchi Abadies Act, 1987. Constitution Petition No.D‑1299 of 2002 Muhammad Hanif Lakhany through Mr. Khalid laved Advocate. Petitioner in this case is claiming rights in respect of commercial/industrial Plot No. 1092, Sheet No. 11, Akbar Road, Shershah Colony; Karachi, measuring 669.50 sq. yds. on the basis of a lease‑deed executed in his favour by Directorate of Katchi Abadies Metropolitan Corporation of the City of Karachi dated 28th February, 1996 for a period of 99 years. The petitioner also claims that another Plot measuring 300 sq. yds. bearing M‑II‑E‑15/54 is also in his possession and occupation since 1971 where he has constructed shops and he has been paying taxes and charges of utilities. The properties constructed by the petitioner on the said pieces of land have been demolished for the purpose of construction of Lyari Expressway. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that the act of demolition already taken and further proposed to be taken be declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. He has further prayed for a restraint order against the respondents from dispossessing the petitioner or making any further demolition as the respondents have no right to demolition or take over the possession of the petitioner's properties except in due course of law. Respondents have taken a plea that the construction was raised by the petitioner was unauthorized and the lease‑deed in his favour allegedly executed by the person having no authority and the land of the Government could not be disposed of by the Metropolitan Corporation of the City of Karachi or their Directorate of Katchi Abadi in the absence of any scheme approved by the Government under section 19 of the Sindh Katchi Abadi Act, 1987. They have further taken a plea that demolition has already taken place and the relief as prayed is no more available to the petitioner. Constitutional Petition No. D‑1444 of 2002 Muhammad Hanif and 34 others through Mr. Shaukat Ali Shaikh, Advocate. It is the case of the petitioners that they have migrated from India and have been rehabilitated in Liaquatabad Area, Karachi, by the Rehabilitation Department of Government of Pakistan in lieu of their properties and assets left in India (Bharat). Respondents allotted various, pieces of plots to the petitioners and gave them allotment orders and leases where the petitioners have constructed their houses according to the master plan. The petitioners stated to have come to know that they are going to be dispossessed and their properties are likely to be demolished for the purpose of construction of a road by name Lyari Expressway without taking any proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. According to the petitioners they cannot be equated with those who were just unauthorized occupants and have been provided one plot of 80 sq. yds. each and Rs.50,000 in cash. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed for declaration that they are lawful owners of the properties, therefore, proposed action of the respondents regarding demolition of their properties forcibly and without the process of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 is illegal and the respondents are liable to pay compensation as per law. They have further prayed for a restraint order against the respondents, their agents, servants, subordinates and anybody else on their behalf from dispossessing the petitioners. In support of their contentions the petitioners have placed on record copies of the lease agreements and documents pertaining to subsequent transactions by the original lessees in favour of others some of which include the petitioners. All these lease‑deeds appeared to have been issued by various authorities including KDA and KMC. The stand taken on behalf of the respondents is same as in other petitions. Legality and validity of the title documents in favour of the petitioners have been controverted. Constitutional Petition No.D‑563 of 2003 Mst. Ruqiya Begum through Mr. Amjad Ali, Advocate. The petitioner has stated in her petition that she alongwith families of her five sons is residing in House No.6‑28/A. "A" Area, Liaquatdbad, Karachi. The land on which the house is constructed was leased out to her late husband Khuda Bux by the erstwhile Karachi Metropolitan Corporation in the year 1985. A double‑storeyed residential house has been constructed. The petitioner is apprehending the demolition of her house for utilization of the said land for the purpose of construction of Lyari Expressway except in due course of law and without following the procedure under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner has, therefore, prayed that her right of property as envisaged under the Constitution of Pakistan be protected and the respondents be restrained from demolishing her house except by initiating acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act. Respondents have taken the same stand as taken in other identical petitions. Constitutional Petition No.D‑1957 of 2002 Jamia Tgyaba Islamia Trust through Mr. Shaukat Ali Shaikh, Advocate. The petitioner is a trust registered in the year 1988 involved in imparting religious education to poor orphan and needy children. It is their case that a piece of land measuring 97‑33 sq. yds. in Rahmania Colony which is a Katchi Abadi in the territorial jurisdiction of Gulshan-e‑Iqbal was granted to them by the Directorate of Katchi Abadies where they have constructed a Madrasa for the said purpose. It has been further stated that the land in question is going to be occupied by the respondents for construction of Lyari Expressway after demolishing the existing structure without having a recourse to the Land Acquisition Proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. They have demanded land and compensation for parting with the possession of the said piece of land and the building raised thereon. The petitioners have asserted that they are not encroachers so that their case could be treated at par with other affectees who were being paid Rs.50,000 and a plot of 80 sq. yds. The petitioners have, therefore, prayed that they may be declared as lawful owners of the trust plot/building and should not be deprived of the same except in due course of law and without having recourse to the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioners have also prayed for a restraint order against the respondents from dispossessing them from the land in question or demolishing the building except in due course of law. The title and claim of the petitioner over the land in question has been alleged to be illegal and void. It has been further stated that the petitioner has no locus standi to file this petition. We have heard Messrs Ghulam Abbas Soomro, Shaukat Ali Shaikh; Ali Gohar Masroof, Maula Bukhsh Khoso, Abdus Salam Baloch, Maqbool‑ur‑Rehman. M. Ilyas Khan, Khalid Javed and Amjad Ali, Advocates for the petitioners, and Gul Muhammad Hajiano, attorney of the petitioner (In C.P. No.D‑460 of 2002) in person, at one hand and Messrs Anwar Mansoor Khan, Advocate‑General, Sindh, Raja Qureshi the then Advocate‑General, Sindh. Abbas Ali, Additional Advocate -General Sindh, Suleman Habibullah, the then Additional Advocate -General, Sindh. Sarwar Muhammad Khan, Advocate for National Highway Authority, Manzoor Ahmad, Advocate for City District Government, Karachi and Shahid Jamiluddin, Advocate for the Karachi Building Control Authority. It has been vehemently urged on behalf of the petitioners by their respective learned counsel that the petitioners are not unauthorized residents/occupants of various pieces of land/plot in their possession but all of them possess lease‑deeds executed either by the officials of the erstwhile Karachi Metropolitan Corporation or the Directorate of Katchi Abadies. Their contention is that the petitioners and in some cases their predecessors‑in‑interest are occupying these plots for a pretty long time and in some cases as back as more than 40 to 50 years. They have developed the said plots and constructed their houses, shops or the places of business after making huge investments. They shall become shelter-less if they are dispossessed in the manner and fashion adopted by the authorities who are involved in such operation for getting the land vacated without any compensation or except in due course of law for the purpose of the construction of Lyari Expressway. It has been further urged that such action on the part of respondents is being apprehended by, the petitioners as it has happened in the cases of so many others, in clear violation of the law of land. They have particularly referred to Article 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan which has guaranteed that no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law. It has been, therefore, argued that the words "no person" has been deliberately used by the framers of the Constitution instead of the words "no owner" and, as such, according to the learned counsel for the petitioners even an unauthorized person cannot be deprived of his property and no property can be taken possession of, save for public purpose and save by the authority of law which provides for compensation therefor and either fixes amount of compensation or specifies the principles on and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and given. With reference to section 19(6) of the Katchi Abadies Act, 1987, it has been urged that the said law has provided the principles and the manner in which the compensation is to be determined and paid. All the learned counsel have, therefore, argued that the property/land in question in possession and enjoyment of the petitioners with title‑deeds cannot be snatched from them except in due course of law and without resorting to land acquisition proceedings under the relevant law. It has also been argued that, in fact, the scheme needs to be modified by reducing the width of the proposed road/expressway so as to reduce the number of the affectees as much possible as could be matte. It is further urged that initially the KDA had proposed to construct a 50 feet wide road on the bank of Lyari River from Mauripur Bridge to Sohrab Goth and even the Land Acquisition Officer was appointed but the said scheme appears to have been abandoned and this new project has been introduced in its place which shall affect thousand of the families. Rs.50,000 in cash and one plot of 80 sq. yds. given as compensation to some persons has been criticised being meagre and unreasonable. It has also been urged that the said formula could be applied in the case of unauthorized occupants but so far the petitioners are concerned they have legal and valid documents of ownership in their favour as they are entitled for adequate compensation as per law. In nutshell the prayer of the petitioners is that in case their plots are required by the respondents for the above purpose, the petitioners should be duly compensated and the compensation for the land as well as the construction raised thereon be paid to them according to the market value. On the other hand, the claim of the petitioners for compensation in the manner as they want, has been disputed by the respondents. Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan, learned Advocate‑General, Sindh, has argued that most of the lands in occupation of the present petitioners belong to the Government of Sindh and it was never transferred either to erstwhile Karachi Metropolitan Corporation or Sindh Katchi Abadies Authority at any time so that they could execute any lease‑deeds in favour of the petitioners. It is urged that all the petitioners are unauthorized occupants and the construction raised by them is also unlawful and in violation of the Building Laws as approval from the concerned Authority has never been obtained and, as such, the petitioners cannot claim a premium over an illegal act committed by them. Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan has further argued with reference to section 21 of the Sindh Katchi Abadies Act, 1987, that for the purpose of grant of any land to the occupants of Katchi Abadi a procedure is to be followed by the Authority. Under section 21(1) Authority has to prepare or cause to be prepared scheme or schemes for development, improvement or regularization of the Katchi Abadis and the scheme or schemes so prepared shall be submitted to Government for approval. Subsection (2) lays down the features of the scheme to be kept in view while preparing a layout plan for Katchi Abadi. Subsection (3) refers to the power of the Government to issue notification in the official Gazette with powers to alter or amend the list of subjects given in subsection (2). Scheme so prepared shall be sent to the Government after having been prepared in such manner and form as Government may specify and shall contain among other things the description of the scheme and the manner of its execution; estimate of costs and benefits; allocation of costs to the various purposes to be served by the scheme; date of commencement, and, date of completion. Learned Advocate‑General, Sindh thereafter referred to subsection (6) to demonstrate that the Authority could execute or cause to be executed the scheme approved by the Government which is lacking in the present cases. He has, therefore, vehemently urged that neither any scheme was prepared by the concerned Authority in respect of the plots under unauthorized occupation of the petitioners nor it was approved by the Government, hence no rights could be conferred upon the unauthorized occupants under the Sindh Katchi Abadis Act, 1987. Learned Advocate‑General, Sindh further argued that as a gesture of goodwill and in order to provide better facilities of life who were residing in slum areas in subhuman conditions the Authorities concerned/City District Government Karachi have formulated a policy under which a plot of 80 sq. yds. and Rs.50,000 in cash has been given to hundred of persons who have voluntarily vacated the slum area where they were found to live in subhuman conditions. The alternate land in the form of 80 sq. yds. plot is being offered to all such persons in a well -planned and developed area where all facilities like electricity, water and sewerage will be provided. Learned Advocate‑General, Sindh has further urged that at one hand these people who are residing presently in such subhuman conditions and in flood hazards area shall get rid of such unhealthy atmosphere and on the other hand a big problem of Karachi City to provide a separate road to heavy traffic which include heavy trucks and trailers plying between Mauripur Bridge and Sohrab Goth will be solved. At present such type of thousands of vehicles have to pass from the city roads including residential and commercial areas which is not only damaging the existing roads but crating traffic jams and causing great pollution in the city. Every citizen is crying for an alternate route for such heavy vehicles. Karachi being the important sea port of the country has to be used for entire import and export of the country and in case this Expressway is not constructed, it shall become impossible for the citizens of Karachi to use the city roads. Challenging the documents/alleged lease‑deeds in favour of the petitioners, it has been argued that the concerned officials found responsible for issuing bogus and fake documents are being taken to task and in certain cases some of them have been removed/dismissed from their services. Replying to the claim of the petitioners in view of Article 24 of the Constitution learned Advocate‑General, Sindh has argued that, indeed, the word "no person" has been used in Article 24 instead of "no owner" but the key word "his' has been ignored by the petitioners. The words "his property" are the key words. If the title of a person is itself based on forged and fabricated documents or having no legal sanctity in the eye of law, he or they cannot claim any protection under Article 24 of the Constitution being unauthorized occupants/trespassers. We have given due consideration to the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and the material placed before us. The petitioners are claiming their title and rights of lease on the basis of registered lease- deeds executed in their favour or in certain cases in favour of their predecessors‑in‑interest by the Authorities concerned like the erstwhile Karachi Metropolitan Corporation or the officials of the Directorate of the Katchi Abadi. In certain cases even there are documents like Village Form II and Village Form VII showing the rights of those petitioners claiming under the said documents having been transferred by the Provincial Government or the Federal Government, or it being the ancestral property of some of the petitioners. It is not disputed that various title‑deeds relied upon by the petitioners are still intact and have not been either cancelled or called in question before a competent forum/Court of law by any of respondents. The mere fact that before execution of the lease‑deeds while treating various localities as Katchi Abadies, scheme as required under section 21 of the Sindh Katchi Abadies Act, 1987 was neither prepared nor sent to the Government for its approval, shall not make any difference under the circumstances of the case. Furthermore, the grantees of the land cannot be blamed for something which was to be done by the Authority/concerned itself and who failed to perform the same and; as such, now in these proceedings the non‑observance of the said provision of law cannot be taken by the Government as a ground to dislodge the claim of the petitioners. The contention of the respondents that various officials who executed lease -deeds in favour of various persons were not competent or that they has no authority to execute any such lease‑deeds, too has no force as they respondents cannot blame the petitioners for inefficiency or dishonesty of their own offices. If the concerned Authorities or departments have failed to put their own house in order, they should thank to their own stars instead of blaming others for, the same. In any event the question whether title to the lands transferred through various leases in favour of the petitioners vested in the Provincial Government or in the Local Councils requires detail investigation of facts and adequate material had not been placed before us to adjudicate the same. It is also apparent from the statutory provisions that Katchi Abadies had, been administered under the control B and supervision of the Local Councils. As far as this Court is concerned once registered leases in favour of the petitioners exist they have to be given effect till such time as they are pronounced void by Courts of competent jurisdiction. We are, therefore, unable to agree with the learned Advocate‑General as regards the plea that the leases in favour of the petitioners ought to be declared void ab initio. Indeed, the learned Advocate‑General seems to be correct in asserting a scheme for regularization of Katchi Abadies in terms or section 21 of the Sindh Katchi Abadies Act. However, we are unable to share the view that in the absence of a duly approved scheme no declaration of any area as Katchi Abadi can be made. Section 19(1) enables the Authority, after certifying as deems fit to declare any area or part thereof which is partially or wholly occupied unauthorizedly to be Katchi Abadi. Obviously an allotment made pursuant to a validly approved scheme could not be treated as "unauthorized", therefore regularization in our view is not premises upon a duly approved scheme but simply through a notification in the official Gazette made by the Authority after due enquiry. It would, therefore, follow that once the area in question was notified to be Katchi Abadi, the leases in favour or the petitioners could not be treated as void. For the foregoing reasons we are inclined to hold that the petitioners cannot be deprived of their property rights except in due course of law and without payment of compensation. Nevertheless, keeping in view the fact that Lyari Expressway is a project' of national importance which is being constructed in the larger public interest for which private property could always be acquired under the law, however, we are not in our discretionary jurisdiction inclined to pass a restraining order. It also needs to be kept in view that a large number of residents some of whom had initially moved this Court have already vacated the property in their possession upon receiving compensatory benefits from the respondents and further delay in the construction of the project would cause a large burden on the public exchequer apart from causing further inconvenience to the public‑at‑large, in the circumstance, therefore, we would dispose of these petitions by directing the respondents to either resolve the dispute through private settlement or by appropriate compensation to the petitioners in accordance with law keeping in view the areas leased out in their favour and the construction raised thereon. At this stage it may be pertinent to mention that in certain cases construction was raised without any approved plan and in violation of the requirements of Sindh Building Control Ordinance. It was argued that the provisions of the Ordinance are not applicable to Katchi Abadies, but we have already repelled this contention in Naik Muhammad v. Maqbool Ahmed and another C.P. No.D‑1516 of 1999. In such cases the petitioners may only be entitled to compensation for the value of land as the buildings are liable to be demolished at the owner's costs. We also hope that considering the nature of inconvenience that may be caused to the petitioners and the enormity of the amount that may be payable by way of compensation, the respondents may be well‑advised to acquire only such amount of land as may be absolutely necessary for the construction of the road/Expressway and reconsider this aspect of the matter. The petitions stand partially allowed and disposed off in the above terms with no order as to costs. Consequently, all pending application also stand dismissed. S.A.K./S‑351/K Petitions partly allowed.