KARACHI, Feb 17: One thousand acres of land allotted to the Sindh Industrial and Trading Estate by the provincial government for its second phase on the Super Highway in 1992 had been cancelled, the board of revenue informed the Sindh High Court on Tuesday.

Contesting several suits by industrial plot owners, BoR counsel M. Ahmed Pirzada submitted before Justice Gulzar Ahmed that the land was cancelled soon after the allotment as the SITE defaulted on the payment of the second and the third and final instalment in violation of the lease agreement.

The total allotment price was fixed at Rs30 million (at the rate of 30,000 per acre), out of which the SITE management paid only the first instalment of Rs6 million and failed to deposit the remaining instalments amounting to Rs24 million. The estate was issued notices but it ignored them and the allotment had to be cancelled by the board of revenue, the counsel said.

The allotment was also hit by Ordinance III of 2001 under which the lessees allotted land for less than the prevailing market price were asked to pay the differential on the pain of cancellation of their lease agreements. The estate had no title in the land and could not carve out or sub-lease industrial plots. He said all the sub-leases executed by the SITE management subsequently were illegal and the individual sub-lessees had no valid title in the land.

The suits had been instituted by three plaintiffs through Advocates Abrar Hasan, Khalid Jawed Khan and Syed Masroor Alvi. One of the plaintiffs, Siddiqui Biradri Society, said it was allotted 18.15 acres in 1985 much before any allotment was made to SITE. Further, they said ten acres were unlawfully occupied by the estate, claiming that they formed part of the 1,000 acres allotted to it later. Plaintiffs Zeeshan Malik and Ilyas Maniar said they purchased 0.5 acre each from SITE but their plots had partially been occupied by the Siddiqui Society.

Justice Gulzar Ahmed, who heard the various parties, asked the SITE management to appear on March 24 and clarify the position in respect of the alleged non-payment of the lease money and consequential cancellation and also explain whether Ordinance III of 2001 was applicable to it.

Demolition ordered

The judge ordered the demolition of the violative second and third floors of the structure raised on Plot 217, Bihar Muslim Co-operative Housing Society, Gulshan-i-Iqbal. The Karachi Building Control Authority was asked to report compliance with the order on February 25. The town police officer of New Town was directed to provide all necessary assistance to the KBCA for eviction of occupants and demolition of the two unauthorised floors. A non-governmental organisation had moved the court against unlawful construction.

KBCA counsel Shahid Jamil Khan informed the court that the authority issued notices to the builder-owner repeatedly that he had sanction only for ground plus one floor but he paid no heed. When the KBCA demolition squad went to the site, its members were detained and maltreated. The builder-owner later approached the high court and obtained a stay order, alleging that his regularisation application was pending with the KBCA. Abusing the status quo order, he raised the unauthorised construction subsequently and then applied for regularisation in disregard of the KBCA notices and gross violation of the building rules and approved plan.

Posting ordered

A division bench comprising Justices Khilji Arif Hussain and Arshad Noor Khan asked the provincial education department to permanently absorb without interview about 60 temporary employees working for it in grades 5 to 15 if they meet the qualifications advertised by it for the posts.

The petitioner employees submitted through Advocate Zamir Husain Ghumro that they were recruited for three years in 2006 but their services were prematurely terminated without notice and without assigning any reason. The posts were later made permanent and advertised in newspapers as vacant. They claimed that they had worked satisfactorily and had a vested right to permanent appointment.

Kidney Hill plots

A three-member Supreme Court bench comprising Chief Justice Abdul Hameed Dogar and Justices Ijaz Yousuf and Farrukh Mahmood, meanwhile, issued notices in a petition seeking to reopen the allotment of 22 out of 62 acres of the precious Kidney Park land to a housing society. A petitioner non-governmental organization submitted through Advocate Sardar Ijaz Khan that the amenity plot meant for a public park could not be put to any other use and any settlement to the contrary was against the law.

An SHC division bench consisting of Justices Azizullah M. Memon and Abdul Rehman Faruq Pirzada issued notices for Feb 25 in another petition questioning the conversion of an amenity plot (No ST-3, Block 6, Federal ‘B’ Area. The managing committee of a mosque adjacent to the plot stated through Advocate Nasir Rizwan Khan that the city district government was considering converting the plot instead of developing a park on it.

Police deny detention

Another division bench consisting of Justices Mohammad Athar Saeed and Salman Ansari gave the advocate-general another opportunity to appear in a suo motu case based on a complaint addressed by the Hong Kong-based Asian Human Rights Commission against the arbitrary arrest and detention of eight women and four children to secure the surrender of an alleged dacoit who was said to have Dr Abdul Jalil Bachani, executive district officer for health at Hyderabad and brother of PPP official Abdul Sattar Bachani. Their cattle and belongings were also seized by the police parties, the AHRC said in its detailed letter to the chief justice, citing dates and other details.

The district police officers of Tando Allahyar and Hyderabad denied the arrests in their reports to the high court. They claimed that complainant Hadi Bux Khokhar had since withdrawn his complaint. The Khokhar family’s cattle had strayed into the nearby jungle and were brought back by the police. There was nothing more to the incident as confirmed by notables of the area.

Representing the AHRC, Advocate Ashik Raza said the commission had duly verified the contents of its complaint and the complainant might have been pressured to withdraw it.