ORDER SHEET

IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI

PRESENT:

Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi

Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan

C.P. No.D-174 of 2023

___________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge

___________________________________________________________________

FRESH CASE:

1. For order on CMA No.1033/2023 (Urgent).

2. For order on CMA No.643/2023 (Exemption).

3. For order on CMA No.644/2023 (Stay).

4. For hearing of main case.

-----------

Dated; 13^th January 2023

Mr. Nisar Ahmed Metlo, Advocate for Petitioner.

-*-*-*-*-*-

1. Urgency granted.

2. Exemption granted subject to all just exceptions.

3&4. Through instant Constitution Petition, the petitioner claims to be a lessee of Plot No.2, Welfare Colony, PIB Colony, Karachi admeasuring 450.19 square yards, which according to learned counsel for the petitioner, belongs to Sindh Katchi Abadis Authority, however, Anti-Encroachment Cell, Estate & Enforcement, Karachi Development Authority has issued a notice under Section 3(1) of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010, whereby, the petitioner has been confronted to vacate unauthorized possession of Commercial Plot No.SB-7, Block-12, Scheme-24, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, petitioner has no concern with the aforesaid plot and has a lease duly issued by Sindh Katchi Abadis Authority, therefore, requests that respondents may be restrained from taking any action against the petitioner pursuant to the impugned notice.

Prima facie, it appears that notice under Section 3(1) of the Sindh Public Property (Removal of Encroachment) Act, 2010, has been issued in respect of Commercial Plot No.SB-7, Block-12, Scheme-24, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi and there is no mention of plot number, which the petitioner is claiming to be a lessee from Sindh Katchi Abadis Authority. It further appears that for seeking remedy against any action taken by the Anti-Encroachment Cell of KDA special tribunal has been created, therefore, the petitioner instead of approaching this Court would have approached the said Tribunal for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law.

In view of hereinabove above facts and circumstances of the case, we are not inclined to entertain instant petition, which prima facie, involves disputed facts and relates to determination of right or possession over immovable property. Accordingly, instant petition is dismissed in limine. However, the petitioner will be at liberty to approach the relevant forum for seeking any relief in accordance with law.

J U D G E

*Farhan/PS*