2008 PLP 2464 (YLR)

AZIZULLAH M. MEMON, J.

Petitioners Mst. Feroza Begum and her two daughters Mst. Khadija and Mst. Fatima, claiming to be in possession of separate huts situated on a plot of about 80 square yards in Zia-ul-Haq Colony, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi have challenged respondents' act of using the land of their huts for constructing Lyari Express Way without giving them compensation and alternate plots of same size. According to them, the plot, which was in their possession in portions, was situated within the limits of Katchi Abadi and they were entitled to its allotment under the Sindh Katchi Abadies Act, 1987.

2. On 2-6-2005, the Additional Advocate-General, Sindh, stated that claims of the affectees of the Lyari Express Way were being scrutinized and in case the petitioners filed their claims they would be scrutinized, like all others by the respondent No.5.

3. The counsel for the petitioners was satisfied with the statement and did not press the petition, which was disposed of accordingly, with liberty to the petitioners to file their claims before the respondent No.5, who would decide the same within a period of two months thereof.

4. The petitioners have applied for punishing the respondent No.5 for violating the order dated 2-6-2005.

5. Manzoor Ahmed, counsel for the respondent (CDGK), has filed certain documents, including comments of the respondent No.5, to show that, on enquiry, it was found that the petitioners were residing together in one house, in lieu whereof the petitioner No.1 was allotted an alternate plot of 80 square yards and was also paid Rs.50,000 as compensation, further stating that her daughters (petitioners Nos. 2 and 3) were not entitled to separate plots and compensation.

6. Attaullah, counsel for the petitioners, contends that each of the petitioners were entitled to separate compensation and allotment of separate plots and the respondent No. 5 was wrong in concluding that the petitioner were residing together and were entitled to allotment of only one plot and one compensation.

7. It is petitioners' own case that they were occupying different portions of the plot measuring 80 square yards, originally obtained by Abdul Karim husband of the petitioner No. 1 and father of the remaining petitioners, in lieu whereof alternate plot of 80 square yards has been allotted and compensation of Rs.50,000 has been paid to the petitioner No.

1. Prima facie it seems to be the adequate compensation. However, in case the petitioners are not satisfied, they are at liberty to file appropriate proceedings before competent forum, if advised. The controversial questions of fact regarding petitioners' claim for allotment of three plots and payment of separate compensation cannot be decided by this Court on writ jurisdiction.

8. In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the respondent No. 5 by not paying compensation and allotting alternate plots separately to each of the petitioners has committed any contempt, particularly when he was not ordered by the Court to do so and the petition was disposed of as not pressed. Accordingly, the listed application for punishing the respondent No. 5 under the contempt law, being misconceived, is dismissed. H.B.T./F-36/K Order accordingly.