Sindh High Court
Tanzeem Fikr o Nazar Sindh (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)
- Case
- Const. P. 100/2019
- Type
- Writ Jurisdictions
- Bench
- Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro
- Length
- 1 page
Full judgment
Official copyORDER SHEET
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH BENCH
AT SUKKUR
C. P. No. D – 100 of 2019
Date of hearing
Order with signature of Judge
Hearing of case (priority)
For orders on office objection at Flag-A
For hearing of CMA No.403/2019 (S/A)
For hearing of main case
Mr. Sarfraz A.
Akhund, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Khuda Bux Chohan, Advocate for Sukkur Municipal Corporation along with Pir Wahid Bux, Municipal Commissioner, Sukkur Municipal Corporation.
Mr. Ahmed Ali Shahani, Assistant Advocate General Sindh.
Para wise comments have been filed by respondents No.5 and 6, which are taken on record.
The subject matter of this petition is the existing concrete structure within Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Park claimed by the petitioner. It is the case of the petitioner that under the name and style of “Tanzeem-e-Fikr-o-Nazar Sindh” was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and the Commissioner was informed about the aims and objects of its creation. The petitioner intended to establish a centre for itself for which Federal Government had agreed to provide necessary funds for construction of the centre and Provincial Government was required to provide necessary piece of land free of cost at Sukkur.
The Commissioner’s letter that was reduced into writing on 12.05.1984 disclosed that they required an area of 20,000 square yards and the petitioner was shown different places. Ultimately, the petitioner agreed to utilize the plot that is meant for a park known as Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Park. The letter further disclosed that around 1,000 square yards had already been granted to Habib Bank Limited. 10,000 square yards were required for construction of the High Court building and rest of the area i.e. 16,076 square yards was provided to the petitioner. Although the High Court was never constructed on the said amenity plot but it shows that out of the park i.e. Ghazi Abdul Rasheed Park, 16,000 square yards were provided to the petitioner and the park was virtually eliminated from the master plan.
This was neither mandate of the Commissioner Sukkur nor permissible under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance or any other law enforced at the relevant time. An amenity plot meant for a park will only remain as an amenity plot for park unless due course is adopted, if permissible under the law to change the purpose of amenity. The meeting was chaired by Commissioner, Mayor Municipal Corporation Sukkur, Assistant Commissioner Sukkur, Abdul Majid Arain, Superintendent Engineering Public Health Engineering Khairpur and Asadullah Bhutto, the General Secretary of the petitioner. They were neither competent to handover park to a private organization for their own benefit nor they could have any recourse available under the law for converting subject park.
In our view, the construction of a building to carry out the aims and objects of a private association / society cannot be catered in the way as conducted by the participants of the meeting held on 12.05.1984. The execution of an agreement for 99 years is without mandate of law, which registered agreement is void ab initio. The petitioner does not dispute that the land which was granted to the petitioner was in fact a park, but claims that since a registered instrument had already been executed, therefore, all acts have been legitimized in view of the registration of the agreement for 99 years.
We do not approve the act of execution of the agreement for 99 years as a lawfully executed instrument nor was it mandate of the authority i.e. Municipal Commissioner of Sukkur Municipal Corporation as he was not authorized or empowered to lease out permanently a plot meant for park to a private entity. Hence, the petition has no force and is misconceived and accordingly dismissed along with the listed application with direction to the official respondents to act strictly in accordance with law, with special cost of Rs.10,000/- (ten thousand) to be deposited with High Court Clinic.
J U D G E
J U D G E
Abdul Basit
Text extracted from the court's PDF and reflowed for reading. The court's official copy is authoritative.
Similar judgments
Closest in subject matter, from every court in the library.
- Sindh High Court · 18 Dec 2019 Shafique Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 29 Jan 2019 Islamuddin & others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2021 SHC SUK 927 · 31 Mar 2021 Abdul Haleem Chachar & others. (Petitioner) VS P.O. Sindh & others. (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 12 Dec 2019 Barkat Ali (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Other (Respondent)
- Sindh High Court · 2022 SHC HYD 259 · 16 Sep 2022 Muhammad Sachal thr LRs (Appellant) VS P.o Sindh & others (Respondent)