ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No.D- 133of 2015

Const. Petition No.D- 3422 of 2012

Const. Petition No.D- 1523 of 2014

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on M.A No.13051/2015 (1.R10)

2. For katchaPeshi.

3. For hearing of M.A No.320/2015 (S/A)

-.-.-.-.

27.09.2017.

Mr. Sohail Ahmed Khoso Advocate for petitioner in C.P No.D-133 of 2015.

Mr. David Lawrence Advocate for petitioner in C.P No.D-3422/2012 and for intervener in C.P No.D-133/2015.

Mr. Ameer Ahmed Shaikh Advocate for respondents Nos. 6 and 7 in C.P No.D-133/2015 and for respondents No.3 to 5 in C.P No.D- 3422/2012.

Mr. Mukesh Kumar G.Kara for interveners in CPD 133-2015.

Mr. Muhammad AslamJatoiAssistant Attorney General.

Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani Assistant A.G.

...............

C.P No.D-133 of 2015 is filed by way of public interest litigation seeking protection of the historical archeological site located in the S.I.T.E Area Sukkur namely “Lakhan-Jo-Daro”, which per counsel is a remnant of over 5000 year old civilization. The other two petitions are filed by the lessees of certain plots which partially form part of the said site.

By way of background, it has been submitted that somewhere in 1963 the land in question was handed over by Board of Revenue to S.I.T.E for setting up of industry in the city of Sukkur. The total area ofSukkur S.I.T.E is said to 40 acres.However, when private individuals started development work in 1980, signs of the archeological finds were uncovered.Proper excavations were then carried out primarily by Shah Abdul Lateef University. Having found these archeological treasures, the Federal Governmentissued aNotification under section 10 of the Antiquities Act, 1975 dated March, 27,2007 being S.R.O (I)/2007 wherein an area of land bearing Survey Nos. 175, 176, 158, 163, 164 and 208 or plot No.D-5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 33 and 34 was designated for the purposes of the said Section.Owner of the land is shown therein as Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Limited (S.I.T.E), Sukkurand the area mentioned in the Notification is 14.00 acres which is duly marked. Since the matter pertains to section 10 of the Antiquities Act, 1975, full text of the said section is reproduced hereunder:-

10. Declaration of protected antiquities. (1) The Federal Government may, be notification in the official Gazette, declare any antiquity to be a protected antiquity for the purposes of this Act.

(2) A copy of a notification under sub-section (1) shall be served on the owner of the antiquity and, in the case of an immovable antiquity, shall also be fixed up in a conspicuous place of or near the antiquity.

(3) A notification under sub-section (1) shall, unless it is cancelled by the Federal Government, be conclusive evidence of the fact that the antiquity to which it relates is a protected antiquity for the purposes of this Act.

(4) Antiquitiesdeclared to be protected antiquities under the Antiquates Act, 1968 (XIV of 1968) and ancient monuments deemed to be protected antiquities for the purposes of that Act, shall be deemed to be protected antiquities for the purposes of this Act.

A plain reading of section 10 shows that it empowers Federal Government to declare any antiquity to be a protected antiquity for the purpose of the 1975 Act, andonce declared under sub-section 3 of section 10, such Notification serves as conclusive evidence of the fact that the antiquity to which it relates is duly protected for the purposes of the 1975 Act.

It appears that initially there were disputes as to whether antiquitieswere found in the area designated in the Notification, for which a JIT was constituted by this Court which gave its findings in terms of Report at page 145. From the said report it appears that detailed work wasundertaken and most of the plots mentioned in the Notification were investigated and findings thereon were given. Page 167 is a map of the area where this exercise was conducted. By way of recommendation, the report concludes as under.

CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS.

After thoroughly discussing and consulting with the concerned stake holders, perusal of their relevant record and visit of JIT at the site, the following conclusions/recommendations can be drawn.

1. The main and official custodian of the antiquities is the Department of Culture, Tourism and Antiquity after declaration of the site as protected antiquity. Hence onus lies on them to take all measures and protect the declared antiquities. Though they have been corresponding with the SITE for preservation of the protected sites, they have not taken required effort to protect the site. As per Antiquity Act 1975, no measures were taken under section 10, or Section 15 to acquire the land as per the Land Acquisition Act 1894. However, the Department also issued a Work Order for “Protection, Preservation and Promotion of Protected Archeological Sites and Monuments In Sindh” vide letter no.I/I/ALL/Sindh/2014 dated 13 June 2014 but no such work wasvisible on the site.

2. The SITE Ltd, Sukkur has been privy to this detailed excavation all along since 1983. Since the land in question fell in their jurisdiction, they should have taken all measures to protect the declared antiquity as per law. On the contrary, they have illegally allotted these plots after the discovery of the ancient site to the private interested owners despite the knowledge of their importance as protected antiquity. SITE have not taken concrete measures to stop encroachments overthese plots.

3. The department of Archeology, SALU Khairpur did their part right as far as excavation and discovery of the ancient site is concerned. But they were not authorized to declare the boundaries and limits of the protected area, which is the sole prerogative of the Department of Culture. SALU subdivided the notified plots into smaller plots that further complicated the matter. The SITE Sukkur also collaborated in this act. In our view, such demarcation bears no legal authenticity.

4. The private owners of the land were mishandled by SITE who allotted them the protected plots, SITE was in knowledge of the fact that excavation and discoveries were being made at these plots. SITE was informed and warned by the Chairperson Dept. of Archeology SALU to abstain from allotting the said plots to any private owners.

The matter may be dealt strictly in accordance with the Antiquity Act, 1975, that is vivid and clear as far as protection and compensation of the protected antiquity is concerned.

Whilst it is undeniable that antiquities were found in the designated area and all present concede this to be the case however, findings of the said JITwere challenged on the ground that JIT stretched its investigationsbeyond the area listed in the Notification,as plot No.B-33/34 thoughwere not mentioned in the Notification, but were also investigated by the JIT and findings on these plots are also part of the JIT Report.

After lengthy deliberation and with the intent of giving due protection to the antiquities found at the site, but at the same time balancing the interest of those to whom the land in question was leased, these petitions are disposed of with the direction thatwhile full force of the 1975 Act and other applicable laws be deployed to preserve the protected antiquities subject matter of the Notification dated 23.03.2007, but all further acts or proceedings taken by the respondent pursuant to the Notification issued under section 10 shall be conducted and carried out in strictcompliance of the provisions of said 1975 Act and if any case of compensation is made by the land owners, it should also bedealt with under the provisions of the said 1975 Act.

For those lands which are not included in the Notification but antiquities were found there or where there is likelihood that more antiquities could be found,the Federal Government to issue appropriate notificationsunder the provisions of the said 1975 Act.

Copy of this order be given to learned D.A.G for compliance.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 845 of 2013

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

For KatchaPeshi

27.09.2017.

Petitioner present in person.

Mr. Shehriyar Imdad Awan Assistant A.Ga/wRustam Ali Deputy District Population Welfare Officer Sukkur.

...............

Petitioner present in person,her counsel is called absent. She seeks adjournment. Learned Assistant A.G present points out that the respondent No. 3 has filed his affidavit through statement dated 06.09.2017, copy supplied to the petitioner present in person.

Adjourned to date in office.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 2159 of 2013

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on office objection ‘A’.

2. For orders on M.A No.14373/2016

3. For orders on M.A No.14374/2016

4. For katchaPeshi

5. For hearing of M.A No.6735/2013

26-09-2017.

Mr.Jamshed A. Faiz Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Noor Hassan Malik Assistant A.Ga/w Muhammad BudhalMemon SPE Education Department district Ghotki.

.-.-.-.--.-.

Learned Assistant A.Gat the outset submits that the controversy at hand is whether the petitioners were under the employment of the respondents or not which could only be ascertained on the receipt of the comments of respondent No.4. However this matter is pending since 2013 and still comments of respondent No.4 have not been filed. By way of last opportunity, two weeks’ time is granted on the request of learned Assistant A.G so that the comments of respondent No.4 could be brought on the record. This is thevery last opportunity and in case comments are not filed within next 15 days, the Court would be inclined to decide the matter as per the material available on record. If no comments have been filed by respondent No.4 before that day,the said respondent must be present in the Court on the next date of hearing along with all the relevant record.Copy of the order be communicated to learned Assistant A.G for compliance.

To come up on 12.10.2017.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 2159 of 2013

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on office objection ‘A’.

2. For orders on M.A No.14373/2016

3. For orders on M.A No.14374/2016

4. For katchaPeshi

5. For hearing of M.A No.6735/2013

26-09-2017.

Mr. Jamshed A. Faiz Advocate for applicant.

Mr. Noor Hassan Malik Assistant A.G a/w Muhammad BudhalMemon SPE Education Department district Ghotki.

.-.-.-.--.-.

Learned Assistant A.G at the outset submits that the controversy at hand is whether the petitioners were under the employment of the respondents or not which could only be ascertained on the receipt of the comments of respondent No.4. However this matter is pending since 2013 and still comments of respondent No.4 have not been filed. By way of last opportunity, two weeks’ time is granted on the request of learned Assistant A.G so that the comments of respondent No.4 could be brought on the record. This is the very last opportunity and in case comments are not filed within next 15 days, the Court would be inclined to decide the matter as per the material available on record. If no comments have been filed by respondent No.4 before that day, the said respondent must be present in the Court on the next date of hearing along with all the relevant record. Copy of the order be communicated to learned Assistant A.G for compliance.

To come up on 12.10.2017.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 3716 of 2013

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on O/Objections at Flag ‘A’.

2. For katchaPeshi

3. For hearing of CMA 11468/2015

26-09-2017.

Mr.Achar Khan Gabol Advocate for petitioners.

Mr. Noor Hassan Malik Assistant A.G.

.-.-.-.--.-.

Learned Assistant A.G at the outset submits that the controversy at hand is whether the petitioners were under the employment of the respondents or not which could only be ascertained on the receipt of the comments of respondents Nos. 2 and 3. However this matter is pending since 2013 and still comments of respondent No. 2 and 3 have not been filed. By way of last opportunity, two weeks’ time is granted on the request of learned Assistant A.G so that the comments of respondents Nos. 2 and 3 could be brought on the record. This is the very last opportunity and in case comments are not filed within next 15 days, the Court would be inclined to decide the matter as per the material available on record. If no comments have been filed by respondent No. 2 and 3 before that day, the said respondents must be present in the Court on the next date of hearing along with all the relevant record. Copy of the order be communicated to learned Assistant A.G for compliance.

To come up on 12.10.2017.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 1448 of 2017

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For katchaPeshi

2. For hearing of M.A No.9188/2017

26-09-2017.

Mr.Shafique Ahmed KhanLeghari Advocate for Applicant.

Mr. Zulifqar Ali NaichAssistant A.G.

.-.-.-.--.-.

Apparently comments have been filed by respondents Nos. 2 to 7. However, alarmingly those comments are not in the file. Office to ensure that the comments are in the file and further matter is adjourned to 11.10.2017.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 1508 of 2017

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For orders on office objection ‘A’.

2. For katchaPeshi

26-09-2017.

Mr. Sajjad Muhammad Zangejo Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Zulifqar Ali Naich Assistant A.G.

.-.-.-.--.-.

Statement has been filed by learned counsel for the petitioner which is taken on record. It is contended that in similar petitions relief has been provided to the petitioners by this Court vide order dated 29.8.2017. Learned Assistant A.G seeks time to affirm the actual position of the aforesaid petitions. However, respondent No.5 files his comments, copy supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

To come up on 12.10.2017.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 1540 of 2017

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For katchaPeshi

2. For hearing of M.A No.9631/2017 (S/A)

26-09-2017.

Mr. Mehfooz Ahmed Awan Advocate for petitioner.

Mr. Mehboob Ali Wassan Assistant A.G.

.-.-.-.--.-.

Mr.Asif Ali Bhatti Advocate files vakalatnamaon behalf of respondents Nos. 7 and 8and claims copy of the memo of petition along with annexures, learned counsel for petitioner undertakes to supply the same. Statement has been filed by counsel for the petitioner, copy supplied to the counsel for the respondents as well as learned Assistant A.G. Learned Assistant A.G to ensure that comments by official respondents are filed before next date.

To come up on 12.10.2017.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 1946 of 2010

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For hearing of CMA 10222/2012 (151)

2. For hearing of CMA 11974/2014 (Conempt)

26-09-2017.

Mr.GhulamShabbirDayo for petitioners.

Mr. Mehboob Ali Wassan Assistant A.Ga/wFaizullahTunioS.O(Legal-I) Finance department.

.-.-.-.--.-.

Statement has been filed on behalf of Additional Secretary (SR/Admn) Finance department/Contemnor No.2 which is taken on record. Copy supplied to learned counsel for petitioner who seeks time to go through the statement.

Adjourned to date in office.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 456 of 2003

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For hearing of CMA 104/2005 (C/A)

2. For hearing of CMA 1239/2004 (151)

26-09-2017.

Mr. Mehboob Ali Wassan Assistant A.G a/wFaizullahTunioS.O(Legal-I) Finance department.

.-.-.-.--.-.

A brief is held by Mr. Nusrat Ali Memon Advocate on behalf of Mr. KanahiaLalNihal Advocate for petitioner and requests for adjournment.

Adjourned to date in office.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 992 of 1998

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of CMA 1568/2010

26-09-2017.

Mr. Sajjad Muhammad Zangejo Advocate for petitioner.

Mehboob Ali Wassan Assistant A.G a/wDeedar Ali Mukhtiarkar Thul district Jacob Abad.

.-.-.-.--.-.

Respondent No.3 is present in person and seeks time. Time granted. Respondent No.3 is directed to file his comments before the next date of hearing.

To come up on 29.11.2017.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 22 of 2003

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

1. For order on CMA 8303/11

2. For order on CMA 2512/07

3. For hearing of CMA 1161/04

26-09-2017.

Petitioner MoulviShahzadoDreho present in person.

Mr. Manoj Kumar Tejwani Advocate for respondents.

Mr. Mehboob Ali Wassan Assistant A.G.

.-.-.-.--.-.

This matter was disposed of by this Court vide order dated 23.09.2003 whereby the counsel for the petitioner withdrew the petition on the ground that Chamber of Commerce would make all efforts to ensure that the surroundings of the plot that they purchased are kept in a Green Belt condition. Petitioner submits that the plot was of 1444 sq yards, out of which Chamber of Commerce building was to be constructed on 444 sq yards leaving 1000 sq yards for Green Belt, however, construction even on the green belt has been made.

Let Additional Registrar of this Court act as a Commissioner to visit the premises of the respondent No.1/Sukkur Chamber of Commerce with the objective that whether this Court’s order dated 23.09.2003 has been complied with by the respondent No.1 with regard keeping Green Belt surrounding the office. Commissioner’s Fee shall be Rs. 5000/- which is to be paid by the respondent No.1. Report be submitted within two weeks.

To come up on 07.11.2017.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

ORDERSHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH AT SUKKUR

Const. Petition No. D- 3351 of 2012

_______________________________________________________________

DATE ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE ______________________________________________________________________

For hearing of M.A No.5162/2016 (C/A)

(Notice issued)

26-09-2017.

Mr. Mehboob Ali Wassan Assistant A.G.

.-.-.-.--.-.

A brief is held by Mr. Zulifqar Ali Sangi Advocate on behalf of Mr. Achar Khan Gabol counsel for petitioners and submits that the identical matter is fixed on 28.09.2017.

To come up on 28.09.2017.

JUDGE

Irfan/PA.

A brief is held by Mr. Sikandar Ali Junejo advocate for Mr. Zameer Ahmed Ghumro counsel for petitioner who has been appointed as Advocate General Sindh and states that he is not in contact with the petitioner and counsel holding brief requests that direct notice be sent to the petitioner. Let direct notice be issued to the petitioner for 31.10.2017.