SHC sets aside order for allotment of 126 acres of govt land in Bin Qasim Town

The Sindh High Court has set aside a single judge order with regard to the allotment of 126 acres of land in Bin Qasim Town and remanded back the case for proceedings in accordance with law.

The order came on a high court appeal filed by Sindh government against the single judge order with regard to the extension of 126 acres of land to different individuals. The land was granted in 1980s to them for a 30 years’ lease for poultry purposes.

A single high court bench had ordered the Sindh government to issue fresh challans to the plaintiffs and possession of land to be given after payment of all challans in accordance with the law.

The Sindh government’s counsel submitted that entries of the respondents were cancelled after expiry of their 30 years’ leases for poultry purposes 10 years back. He submitted that the decree of the case was issued without framing the issues of the case and the provincial government did not give its consent to the order. The law officer requested the court to set aside the order and remand back the case.

A division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Shafi Siddiqui observed that it seems to be a contentious matter involving 126 acres of land, which originally was for 30 years’ lease having been expired and some documents (pertaining to its conversion for 99 years), being seriously contested by parties, were made basis of such conclusion.

The court observed that the single judge has relied upon the provisions of order X and XV of the CPC to the effect that by invoking these provisions dispensation of justice will be expeditious.

The court observed that the prerequisites to apply these provisions of law is the pleadings of the parties, particularly those of the defendants (in the suit), which had not come on record when the impugned order was passed.

The court observed that no written statement appears to have been filed by any of the defendants in the suit and hence the question of examination of parties by the court in terms of Order X does not arise and parties seem to be at issue on facts and law. It observed that it appears to be a dispute between the government and the private parties/plaintiffs and the provincial law officer has categorically disputed the claim of the plaintiffs/respondents over the land in question during course of his arguments by stating that the regularization was not effected in the record of rights and in the record of rights the status of the land is shown as cancelled.

The court observed that how respondents (plaintiffs in the suit) managed to get their 30 years’ lease regularized for 99 years is a triable issue. It said even if we presume the impugned order to be a consent order/decree, while passing such a consent decree it is to be carefully seen if the relief granted is within the frame of the suit, particularly when the land originally belongs to the government and there is every possibility of collusive proceedings in connivance with the government functionaries/officials passing such oral instructions, which aspect has not been considered in the instant matter.

The court observed that the provincial law officer, during the course of his arguments has categorically stated, as is mentioned in paragraph 4 of the impugned order, that the land is not yet regularized and its status in their record is shown to have been cancelled.

The judges observed that they do not approve such hasty and undetermined questions for the conclusion drawn which may have an element of hurried burial. The court set aside the SHC’s single judge order and remanded back for proceedings in accordance with law.