1. For orders on office objection Nos.1 & 2.

2. For Katcha Peshi.

3. For hearing of Misc. No.8294/2007

29-09-2009:

Mr. Ahmed Hassan Rana, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, Advocate for CDGK.

Mr. Shafi Muhammad Memon, Addl. A.G.

- - - - - - -

The petitioners have sought directions to follow the policy proposed and recorded in the judgment dated 14.10.2003 whereby the matter relating to the affectees of Lyari Expressway was to be dealt with by the respondents and they have claimed that after removal from the dwelling houses neither they have accommodated nor paid any compensation and so also they have not been treated at par with other affectees as the criteria laid down in the judgment of this Court dated 14.10.2003.

It appears that this Court had appointed Mr. Mazhar Ali B. Chohan, as Commissioner vide order dated 09.08.2007. In the instant petition, the petitioners were directed to appear before the Commissioner along with their CNICs and other relevant documents to establish that indeed they were residing in the alignment of Lyari Expressway and are genuine affectees. It seems that the Commissioner has complained that none of the petitioners has approached and the Commissioner has requested for enlargement of further time which time was extended for the purpose of verification of their documents. It also seems that the report of the Commissioner was filed on 18.03.2008, the Commissioner reported that despite a lapse of considerable time, none of the petitioner has appeared before him along with the original documents as directed; however, one of the persons claiming to be the attorney has placed unverified documents which he has placed along with the report.

We have examined the documents invariably affidavits and mostly in Urdu and some in English claiming to be in possession of the property. It is admitted that the Lyari Expressway has already been constructed and before removal of the affectees, survey was carried out and the list was prepared and apparently on the basis of such list this Court while disposing of main petition directed the CDGK to compensate and provide re-habilitation facilities to the affectees.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on the comments apparently stated to be filed on behalf of the District Officer (Revenue) to assert that the possession was on the river belt. It may be observed that Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, learned counsel for CDGK has seriously objected to such comments as the same has not been filed by the authorized officer nor he owns the same. Irrespective of the veracity and authenticity of such document, it may be observed that the comments show that "that their houses were constructed after completion of the survey work, therefore, treated as new construction/fresh encroachment."

Since the Lyari Expressway has since been constructed, it cannot be ascertained at this point of time whether the petitioners were infact in occupation of the property claimed by them or otherwise claim of the petitioners call for factual enquiry which, we are afraid cannot be carried out in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction. There is no material on record nor petitioners availed of the opportunity to establish their title or even possession prior to their alleged removal from river bed. However, in case the petitioners are able to show and establish their possessory rights, they may be do so in appropriate civil proceeding and not through the extraordinary writ jurisdiction.

Under such circumstances, the petition is according dismissed along with listed application.

J U D G E

Nadeem