2006 PLP 110 (CLC)

SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.

The petitioners, who own certain properties, to which access is available through Siddiq Wahab Road, appear to be aggrieved by certain constructions raised on the other side of the plots by reducing the width of the road as contemplated by the master plan. It is contended that the original master plan stipulated an 80 feet wide road, but subsequently respondents Nos.3 to 12 raised structures so that the width of the road was reduced to 48 feet only. Mr. M. Farooq Hashim, learned counsel for the petitioners, urged that there was nothing on record to show that the width of the road was lawfully reduced through an amendment made in the master plan according to the legal process. On the other hand, a counter-affidavit was filed by one Mr. Zubair Ahmed, an Assistant Officer in the Land Department, who contended that the master plan had been ammended through a resolution of the City District Government, Karachi, after inviting public objections. However, no record of such objections and subsequent amendment in the plan has been produced. Indeed, when the deponent had no access to any information indicating amendment of the master plan through a legal process, mere reliance on a copy of a resolution is not adequate. It may be added that both in the admission order dated 24-11-1994 as well as the order, dated 27-5-2004 it was observed that the respondents had not filed the appropriate documents in support of their case. Ms. Rehana Perveen, learned counsel for private respondents, however, argued that the respondents Nos.3 to 12 had been granted leases by the respondent No.1 under M.L.O. 110 and acquired title to the properties, wherein they were ruining their shops. We are afraid these facts would be of a little consequence for the decision of this case. Indeed it is well-settled that an owner cannot transfer a better title to a transferee than he himself possesses as has inter alia been observed by the Honourable Supreme Court in Muhammad Saleem v. Administrator, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, K.B.C.A. (K.M.C.), Karachi and 5 others 2000 SCMR 1748. Secondly, learned counsel for the petitioners pointed out that under M.L.O. 110 only leases for residential property could be granted to occupants and, therefore, even if the respondents Nos.3 to 12 be treated as occupants of plots, no transfer could be made in their favour. Moreover, no area forming part of road site could be treated as Katchi Abadi and transferred as such. The above leases, therefore must be held to be void. The respondents Nos.3 to 12 may, however, claim any damages that they might have suffered on account of such instruments having been executed by respondent No.1 and its officers. The petition stands allowed in the above terms. The unauthorized structures, therefore, require to be demolished. We also expect appropriate disciplinary action being taken against persons responsible for creating such public inconveniences and causing substantial burdens upon the public exchequer. H.B.T./M-284/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.