ORDER SHEET
__________________________________________________
ORDER WITH SIGNATURE OF JUDGE
__________________________________________________
For hearing of CMA 3559/2006.
Statement dated 28.2.2007 filed by Advocate for plaintiff may kindly be perused at flag “A”.
1.3.2007.
Mr. Muhammad Ali Hakro for plaintiff.
Mr. Nazar Muhammad Jamali for defendant
No. 1.
Mr. Abbas Ali AAG for defendant No. 2.
__________
The plaintiff has resorted to file suit for declaration, injunction and damages against the defendants.
Precisely plaintiff is a Society registered under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 owns a project known as Gulshan-e-Mehran situated in Scheme No. 33 Karachi for the purpose of municipal control and development falls within the jurisdiction of Malir Cantonment Board. The management of the plaintiff society has resorted to the defendant No. 1 for approval of layout plan of its land which was duly approved by the Board upon proper scrutiny. The plaintiff society has resorted to file approved layout plan for additional land, after removal of the encroachments which was duly considered by Cantonment Board in terms of provisions of Cantonment Board Act. Substantial amount was deposited and layout plan for additional land measuring 66.29 acres was approved, upon the demarcation and internal development work undertaken by the plaintiff society, substantial construction was raised comprising of underground overhead tanks, roads and streets were constructed water and electricity connections and sewerage system have been obtained from the concerned authorities. Subsequent thereof defendant No. 1 on the basis of layout plan sanctioned on 20.10.1981 and 6.8.1996, the members of the society submitted their plan which was declined on the ground that layout plan of the project Gulshan-e-Mehran has not been approved. On account of negative attitude of the defendant No. 1 the plaintiff had to forego its rights over the disputed portion of land. Subsequently the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff continued but the negative approach of the defendant No. 1 persistently effected its members by not approving the building plans. Plaintiff society has issued notice to the defendant No. 1 as the development work of Gulshan-e-Mehran was required to be completed within the period of three years from the date of approval of layout plan. Notice was duly replied by the defendant No. 1 explaining that layout plan had been approved which had been implemented by the defendant No. 1 till December 2003. The controversy has arisen when defendant No. 1 addressed a letter dated 11.3.2006 to the Chairman of the Society which is reproduced herein below:-
“Mr. Sultan Siddiqui,
Chairman,
Sindh Government Employees,
Cooperative Housing Society,
Gulshan-e-Mehran
Near Super Highway, Malir Cant.
Karachi.
SUBJECT: LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT/MUNICIPAL
LAYOUT PLAN APPROVAL.
Reference: This office letter No. MLR/GECHSC/GEM
/81/70 dated 20th October, 1981 and
Notices No. MLR/GECHSC/GEM/Vol I/05/857
dated 31.5.2005 and MLR/GECHSC/GEM/05/626
dated 16.9.2005.
2) Whereas, the sanction granted vide letter of 1981 referred above stands expired on 19.10.1983 and whereas you have willfully failed to respond to the notices issued in this regard, you are directed to cease the activities of the society under section 2 and 17 of the Bye-Laws to Regulate Development of Private Lands in Malir Cantonment Board forthwith, failing which necessary liable action shall be adopted by this office at your own risk and cost.
Sd/-
(Shahrome Safdar Khattak)
Cantonment Executive Officer
Malir Cantonment:”
In terms of the above referred letter the sanction granted by the defendant No. 1 for land development / municipal layout plan for approval stands expired on 9.10.1983 and on account of the fact plaintiff did not respond to the notice issued, the defendant No. 1 directed the society to cease the activities in terms of Section 2 and 17 of the bye-laws to regulate development of private land in Malir Cantonment Board forthwith, failing which consequences shall follow.
Upon the registration of the case filed by the plaintiff Society vide order dated 12.5.2006 the defendants were restrained from taking any coercive action against the plaintiff.
In response to the notice issued to the defendant, Mr. Nazar Muhammad Jamali has candidly conceded that the defendant No. 1 had approved the layout plan of the society as well as of the additional land awarded to the society upon the payment of substantial amount and there exists no dispute in respect of the approval of the layout plan. It is further submitted by Mr. Jamali that the case of individual member of the society for approval of the plan shall be considered as and when submitted before defendant No. 1 for approval which shall be considered on its merits. It is further contended that defendant No. 1 did not reject the plan of any individual of the society so far.
The statement of the learned counsel for defendant No. 1 was suffice for disposal of the injunction application as well as prayer clauses (a) to (d) contained in the plaint. However, Mr. Hakro has sought a week’s time for seeking instructions from the plaintiff, as to whether they were prepared to forego the claim of damages amounting to Rs. 20,000,000/- (Rupees twenty million) contained in clause (e) of the plaint. Time sought is granted. Put off to 13.3.2007 for further proceedings.
J U D G E