1. ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J.--- The petitioner No,1 claiming himself to be the President of Muhammad Yousuf Sahib Khan Goath (Residents Welfare Society) and other petitioners Nos,2 to 10 claiming themselves to be allottees/occupants of plots in the said Goath (Village), have preferred this constitutional petition with the following prayers:--
(1) To declare that the petitioners are the lawful allottees/occupants of their respective plot under the Sindh Goathabad (Housing Scheme) Act, 1987 in Muhammad Yousuf Sahib Khan Goath.
(2) That the impugned order No,DO/ENF/SCH-33/04/03 dated 10-12-2003 be declared as null and void and is of no legal effect.
(3) Any other relief/reliefs which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the present case.
2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioners is that they are in possession of Sanads, Farm-II and Site plan of their respective plots issued by respondents Nos,1 and 2 in their favour under the Sindh Goathabad (Housing Scheme) Act of 1987, in the year 1997, which confer lawful title in their favour.
3. Further case of the petitioners is that the respondent No,3 by its order, dated 10-12-2003 under sections 141, 144 and 145 of S.L.G.O. 2001 and Fourth Schedule Part-I(I), has issued notices for removal of encroachment treating them as encroachers and thereby threatened to, demolish existing construction over their plots, though such provisions of law are not applicable in their case.
4. Thus, the action of respondent No,3 is illegal, without jurisdiction and petitioners are entitled for the reliefs claimed in the petition.
5. On service of notice, respondent No,3 has submitted its detailed reply by way of filing counter- affidavit of D.O., Revenue Wing, City District Government, Karachi, wherein, inter ilia, the said officer has stated that the so-called Muhammad Yousuf Sahib Khan Goath sanctioned on 22-5-1997 was cancelled by the defunct Deputy Commissioner, Malir, Karachi, under section 6 of the Sindh Goathabad Act, 1987, vide order, dated 27-11-1998, after fulfilling all the legal formalities and consequently the land in dispute was restored to the Government as per Revenue Record. Out of said land, an area of 45-00 acres was earmarked and proposed for bus terminal and possession thereof was handed over to Malir Development Authority, Karachi, but subsequently an area of over 100 acres including disputed land of the Government was illegally occupied by encroachers, including the petitioners. Respondent No,3 also placed on record copy of relevant order, dated 27- 11-1998 which shows that grant of. Muhammad Yousuf Sahib Khan Goath was withdrawn/cancelled more than five years ago.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case record. The learned counsel conceded that the most important and material fact about the passing of impugned order, dated 27-11-1998 by the Deputy Commissioner, Malir, Karachi, whereby the grant of (sic)
7. Village Muhammad Yousuf Sahib Khan Goath was withdrawn/ cancelled, has not been disclosed in the petition, but to meet this situation he contended that this fact was not within the knowledge of petitioners. We are not impressed by such explanation given by the learned counsel for the petitioners for the reason that passing of such order, going to the root of the entitlement of the petitioners, having been passed after detailed enquiry, cannot remain secret for a period of over five years. More so, when its copies were also dispatched to all concerned officers, including the office of Mukhtiarkar Sindh Goathabad Malir, Karachi. Even in the rejoinder filed on behalf of the petitioners on 7-9-2004 it has nowhere been stated that no such order was passed or petitioners had no knowledge of such cancellation/withdrawal order. It is, thus, evident that the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands and they are not entitled for any equitable relief in this petition. Moreover, perusal of the case record reveals that as a result of interim order obtained by the petitioners by suppression of such material facts, the project of public utility viz. construction of bus terminal has remained in abeyance for a considerable period as encroachment from bus terminal land could not be removed. Since this petition has been filed by the petitioners on the basis of documents, which have no legal value, we have no hesitation to hold that this is a frivolous petition, which is liable to be dismissed with special costs.
8. Foregoing are the reasons for our short order, dated 14-9-2004.