P L D 2006 Karachi 8 (PLP)

Most of the respondents have not entered appearance and despite repeated calls no Law Officer of the Provincial Government representing respondents No. 1, 2 and 3 was available to assist us. Nevertheless since learned counsel for the parties, whose substantial interests were directly involved, were present therefore, we decided to proceed with the matter. Briefly the relevant facts, as contended by the petitioner, appeared to be that the petitioner had acquired 6,600 acres of land for the purpose of Scheme No.41, Surjani Town, Karachi. Subsequently, however, an area of 163 acres was de-notified through Notification dated 8-8-1985 and came to be vested in the respondent No.

1. According to the respondent No. 10 he was allotted a plot of 4 acres out of the de-notified area, but this assertion has not been admitted by the petitioner. The respondent No.5, on the other hand, was also allotted a plot of 4 acres by the respondent No.1 on 10-6-1980 by the Revenue authorities long before the scheme was launched and the property was acquired by the petitioner. In 1982 the process for acquisition of the land under the Land Acquisition Act was commenced and facing threat of dispossession respondent No.5 moved this Court seeking appropriate orders against the respondent No.3 and the petitioner. The petition was disposed of in terms of a consent order passed on the joint application of the parties. It was agreed that an alternate plot and monetary compensation in the sum of Rs. 105,773 would be paid to the respondent No.5 and thereafter the said respondent would surrender possession in favour of the petitioner. By way of performance of the terms of the consent order the petitioner allotted the plot in question to the respondent No.5, but when the aforesaid respondent proceeded to obtain possession, he found that it had already been allotted to the respondent No. 10, who was in possession thereof. The respondent No.5 claims that in view of the above position he has not yet surrendered possession of the plot originally allotted to him. Mr. Ghulam Abbas Soomro, learned counsel for the respondent No. 10, has contended that the plot allotted to the said respondent falls within the 163 acres surrendered to the respondent No.1 and therefore, the petitioner should not be aggrieved by the allotment in his favour Mr. Muhammad Anwar Tariq, learned counsel for the petitioner, however, is not prepared to accept the assertion on facts, but has candidly conceded that if the facts asserted by the respondent No. 10 be true, he will not press the petition to that extent. The position taken up indeed appears to be very fair. As regards the respondent No.5, it is quite clear that the said respondent had recognized the respondents' right to possession of the plot earlier allotted only if an alternate plot is provided and monetary compensation was paid. Therefore, in case the petitioner is unable to deliver possession of the plot, which is claimed by the respondent No.5, the petitioners' right and interest over the earlier plot would continue to A exist to the extent in the lease. In view of the above position, we would dispose of this petition by simply recording that the respondents Nos.1 to 3 can only lease out properties falling outside the notified scheme, as amended vide Notification dated 8-8-1985, till then the possession of the respondent No.5 will not be disturbed, except in terms of the compromise in Constitutional Petition No.D-901/1986. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./C-40/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.