' The petitioner has sought relief against demolition of structure raised on Plots Nos.E-22 to E-27 in Moosa Goth, Block 'ID' North Nazimabad, Karachi. He has claimed ownership of all these plots on the basis of a letter, dated 14-1-1992 from the respondent No,3 addressed to then Deputy Commissioner Central, Karachi, which may be reproduced as under:- NO.PS/MBR(LU)/10/92 GOVERNMENT OF SINDH, ' Land Utilization Department Camp at Karachi dated 14-1-1992 To, ' The Deputy Commissioner, Karachi (Central), Subject: REGULARIZATION OF VILLAGE MOOSA GOTH.
' Reference your letter No,DGC/ACR/C/15/91, dated 12-1-1991.
' In exercise of the powers conferred under section 10(1) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912, the Government of Sindli in Land Utilization' Department with the prior approval of the Chief Minister, Sindh has been pleased to regularize area in occupation within ancestral/old established site of Moosa Goth and Kando Goth (villages), respectively, (shown to have existed in the survey map of Deh Khari-Lakhi since 1881-82), at the occupancy rate of Re.1 per sq. Yard by granting to the residents lease hold rights in respect of the area in their possession, subject to detailed survey and planning and development charges to be fixed in consultation with the K.D.A.
(2) You are, therefore, requested to take further necessary action in the matter.
(Sd.)
SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF SINDH LAND UTILIZATION DEPARTMENT
2. With profound respect we are entirely unable to agree that ownerships right by the petitioner can be claimed merely on the basis of above letter. It is explicitly stated that the decision to regularize the area B in occupation of certain persons could only be given effect by granting lease hold rights to such persons. It is admitted that no such leases have yet been executed. This obviously indicates that the concerned authorities would execute the leases only after verifying whether a particular area/ plot in the occupation of a particular person and this exercise has not yet been undertaken.
3. Moreover, the petitioner has referred to an interim order passed in C.P. No,D-958 of 2001 and claimed that demolition be restrained on the strength of the aforesaid order. Indeed such order existed at the time 'of filing this petition, but the petitioner has been disposed of vide judgment, dated 14-10-2003 and this plea is no longer available to the petitioner. Moreover, we are extremely perturbed by the fact that C.P. No,0958 of 2001 was filed by one Eidhen Singh who claimed ownership of two of the above Plots, i,e, E-25 and E-26 as having been purchased by him from one Haji Abdullah, through the same learned counsel. While we would refrain from initiating any action we must record that higher standards of professional ethics are expected and counsel need to avoid representing parties claiming conflicting interests in property.
4. In any event with respect to construction the respondents have contended that the petitioner is an encroacher upon public property and have claimed a right to demolish the same and take possession accordingly. This right cannot be denied by the respondent unless the petitioner proves his title. The petition is, therefore, dismissed in limine along with the listed applications.