O R D E R S H E E T
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH AT KARACHI
C.P. No.D-2308/2007
ORDER WITH THE SIGNATURE OF THE JUDGE
29-09-2009:
Mr. K. A. Wahab, Advocate for Petitioner.
Mr. Safdar Mehmood, Advocate for Respondent No.1.
Mr. Anwar Ali Shah, Advocate for Respondent No.2.
- - - - -- - - - - -
The petitioner has impugned action of returning of the plan for approval through covering letter dated 20.09.2007 in 29.09.2007. It appears that the petitioner has applied for construction on plot No.18, Keamari Township, Karachi, admeasuring 273 square yards. The petitioner has requested for raising two additional floors which was declined through impugned letter. It was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was discriminated and other persons who have raised excessive construction were regularized. He placed on record an order passed in (C.P.No.582/06 Mir Hassan vs. Federation of Pakistan), (C.P. No.525/06 Mir Hassan vs. Federation of Pakistan), (C.P. No.1512/07 Syed Johar Akhter vs. Federation of Pakistan) and Suit No.1466/2005 Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs. Haji Gul Hassan and brothers and others.
The learned counsel for respondent contends that all the cases cited by the counsel for the petitioner, are relating to the excess charges in respect of the building which was already constructed and regularized. In the instant case the petitioner has applied for additional floors which were not allowed. He further points out the illegal and unauthorized action on the part of the petitioner as the suit has already been filed and ad-interim order is operating and the matter is subjudice.
We have heard the arguments and perused the record. In the cases referred by the learned counsel we have noted that invariably in most of the cases pertain to mutation and compensation of ground rent and in none of the cases it appears that permission to raise additional floors has been conceded by the Court. In the instant case also it appears that unauthorized construction was sealed by the KBCA yet by tampering the seal the construction is being carried on as is apparent from the counter affidavit filed by the respondent No.1 (KPT).
In view of the facts that it is a settled principle of law that the person who claims equity must do equity and no person could claim discrimination when he himself is not adhering to the equitable principle. Since the suit is pending before the Court of competent jurisdiction, we would refrain from exercising extra ordinary jurisdiction in this matter. The petitioner may seek relief before the competent forum. Any observation made hereinabove will not influence the case of either party before the learned single judge.
Under the circumstances, the petition is disposed of alongwith all the listed applications.
J U D G E
J U D G E