ORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
Suit No.2495 of 2016
|
Date |
Order with signature of Judge |
1. For hearing of CMA 16467/16
2. For hearing of CMA 17722/16
3. For hearing of CMA 2865/17
4. For examination of parties/settlement of issues.
Dated: 11.09.2018
Mr. Mujahid Iqbal Chaudhry for plaintiff
Mr. Abrar Ahmed for defendant No.1.
Mr. Muhammad Shoban Solungi for KMC/defendants No.2 and 3.
-.-.-
1/2) Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff was residing on the first floor of the building built as G-3 on Plot No.RC-10/5, Yaqoob Khan Road, Ranchore Line, Karachi. Upon she receiving a notice from SBCA dated 31.10.2012 (Annexure ‘F’) in terms of which SBCA declared the said building dangerous and sought vacation of the premises immediately and that notice being the final notice, per counsel for the plaintiff, the plaintiff left the first floor while ground floor was occupied by defendant No.1, through his legal heirs. After the plaintiff having left the first floor of the building, she observed that defendant No.1 started construction in the open space in front and on the backside of that building, at which juncture the instant suit was filed calling upon this Court to have the said illegal construction demolished, inter alia.
Learned counsel for defendant No.1 submits that an inspection was ordered by this Court on 08.02.2017, which was carried out on 21.02.2017 and the inspection report is available at page 61 which in its material part mentions that neither any construction was found in progress at the time of inspection nor any labour or construction material was found at the site.
The counsel for plaintiff contends that after filing of the suit on 22.11.2016 the defendants started raising the construction day and night, which is evident from the photographs attached with the commissioner report, which shows newly constructed portion in front and back of the building.
The contents of the counter-affidavit filed by the SBCA to the injection application are of peculiar concern where SBCA has not only declared the said building as dangerous, but affirmed that notice dated 31.10.2012 was served upon all the occupants of the building, as mandated by the relevant provision of the building byelaws. It is also stated in the said counter-affidavit that the construction of 2-3 rooms and one bathroom with temporary sheets roof is raised without approval of SBCA.
Since there was a continued violation of this Court’s order, a contempt application was moved on which the alleged contemnors appeared and filed their comments to that application.
From the aforementioned facts, it is not only evident that building has been declared as dangerous on account of it being in a dilapidated and dangerous condition but a final notice also having been served on 31.10.2012, therefore, there is no obstruction in SBCA to proceed with the matter in accordance with law against the said dilapidated and dangerous construction/building. With regard to the construction made in the open spaces, if that is the case that no approval was sought from SBCA in this regard, the SBCA is directed to take appropriate action against such illegal construction, as mandated by the relevant laws immediately and file a report no later than one month.
The above order disposes of the applications fixed at Sr. No.1 and 3/4) Let the matter be fixed for framing of issues and hearing of the remaining application CMA No.2865/2017.
Judge