ANWAR ZAHEER JAMALI, J. - This High Court Appeal has been preferred by the appellant to impugn the order dated 14.03.2006 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.1099 of 2004, which reads thus: "Written statement as well as a statement pursuance to the order dated 27.02.2006 has been filed by the CDGK. Ln the statement it is. Mentioned that the defendant No.1 is an encroacher of the suit land. Mr. Manzoor Ahmad states that the CDGK will take steps for the removal pf the encroachment under the Encroachment Act, 1975 and that such action will be taken within the period of one month. Mr. Anwar Muhammad learned counsel for the plaintiff upon instructions from the plaintiffs who are present in person states that the plaintiff is satisfied with the statement made by counsel for the City District Government and do not press this suit and state-that the suit may be disposed of with observation that if the C.D.G.K, does not take the steps within the above-mentioned period, the plaintiff will be free to approach this Court for the removal of their grievance. Consequently the suit is disposed of in terms stated above with observation that the plaintiff will be free to approach the Court for the removal of their grievance in accordance with law. The pending applications are also disposed of in the above terms."
2 Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently contended that the land in possession of the appellant is in the form of independent plots carved out by the City District Government/Karachi Development Authority in terms of sketch available at page, 75 of the memo, of appeal for which the appellant, being in possession, is. Pursuing his case for regularization before the concerned authorities for over twenty years, ln this context, he has also made reference to the document placed at page 71 of the Court file which is purportedly a note for the Secretary HTP Sindh issued from the Director Land Management KDA. Further submission of the learned counsel is that in such circumstances observations made by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order have caused serious prejudice to the interest of the appellant inasmuch as the City District Government has issued a show-cause notice to the appellant treating him to be an encroacher over these plots though the position is quite different.
3. Ln reply, Mr. Anwar Muhammad Siddiqui, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.1 and 2 has contended that in their written statements the appellant as well as the respondents Nos.3 and 4 have admitted-the illegal possession of the appellant over the area adjoining to the plots of respondent Nos.1 and 2 and further the official respondents have also conceded to the claim of respondent Nos.1 and 2 about encroachment over the road area. He also contended that if there is any extra land available adjoining to the plots of respondent Nos.1 and 2 for that, as per rules, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 Have preferential right for allotment and they are also pursuing their claim before the City District Government. Therefore, passing of impugned order is fully justified to stop the illegal activities of the appellant.
4. Mr. Raja Sikandar Khan Yasir, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has contended that the notice dated 22.3.2006 issued to the appellant is strictly in accordance with the relevant statute regarding removal of encroachment and that the respondent No.3 will act strictly in accordance with law for removal of encroachment.
5. After hearing the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant, the main grievance of the appellant seems to be regarding the observations of the learned single Judge contained in the impugned order, which according to the appellant, are being misinterpreted and misapplied by respondent No.3 for dislodging the present appellant from the land in his possession without waiting for the decision of his pending claim for regularization of his possession.
5. Ln the facts and circumstances discussed above we are of the view that the grievance of the appellant as regards the impugned order will be redressed if this appeal is disposed of with the observations that the respondent Nos.3 and 4 will act strictly in accordance with law for removal of encroachment, if any, made by the appellant without being influenced by the directions/observations contained tn the impugned order. Leaving apart such action the appellant as well as respondent Nos.1 and 2 may pursue their respective claim in respect of the disputed piece of land/plot before the concerned authorities or to follow any other legal course available with them in this regard. We accordingly dispose of this appeal in the same terms.