1. Complaints against the petitioner is that they have converted the residential property into commercial. Learned counsel for the respondent has placed copy of the indenture of lease in respect of the property which clearly shows that it is residential if that be the case it falls within the jurisdiction of CDGK action to take against unauthorized construction in terms of the Regulation, 2002. Mr. Manzoor further points out that TMO Korangi has already initiated action against the unauthorized conversion without discrimination against the petitioners and any other person in the locality. Learned counsel for TMO states that directions have been given to the authority concerned for taking action against all unauthorized constructions and conversions of residential property into commercial it may include the petitioner if violation is made.
2. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner states that dispute as to the title between the petitioner president and other claimant of the property is pending. The pendency of the suit if not relates to the nature of the property will not affect the action taken by TMO.
3. '18-5-2007 ' A Statement has been filed by respondent No,3, which is evasive and vague in which it has been stated that the order of this Court passed on 8-3-2007 has been complied with by and other concerned respondents. Let TMO, Korangi Town file a detailed affidavit in regard to the manner in which he has complied with the order as the order was not confined to the petitioner but was an order for removal of unauthorized encroachment in the whole area. It appears that the TMO has utilized the portion of order against the petitioner exonerating those, who have encroached otherwise. The detailed affidavit shall be supported by the documents. Adjourned. To come up on 22-5-2007. The TMO, Korangi Town shall be in attendance on the next date. In the meantime the petitioner will, be at liberty to file any further application as according to learned counsel for the petitioner as his lawful construction has been demolished by the TMO.
4. ' ORDER '22-5-2007 We are not persuaded by the affidavit sworn by the TMO. He was directed to remove the encroachment of the entire locality and instead he has opted to write to the K.B.C.A for demolition of the petitioner's office, which according to him was being run on residential premises. This is very strange attitude of the TMO, who being public servant was required to remove the encroachment of the entire area and he in defiance of this order has prima facie settled score with the petitioner.
5. ' Let the officers of the K.B.C.A who have taken action appear tomorrow i.e, 23-5-2007 and perhaps after hearing the parties we may initiate contempt proceedings against the TMO and those officers who have demolished the premises of the petitioner under the colourful exercise of the powers.
6. 'To come up tomorrow i.e, 23-5-2007 at 11-00 a.m. With the concerned officers who were present at site at Korangi. The Advocate-General is put to notice to assist the Court as a prosecutor in case if the contempt proceedings be initiated against them.
7. ' ORDER ' 23-5-2007 ' By order dated 8-3-2007 this Court has directed the respondent K.B.C.A and TMO Korangi Town to take action against the unauthorized conversion without discrimination. In the order it has been observed that the learned counsel or TMO, Korangi Town states that the directions have been given to the authority concerned for taking action against unauthorized construction and conversion of residential property into commercial. This Court has further observed in the order that status of property as to whether it is residential or commercial pending in the suit would not affect the action of the TMO. After 'passing this order on 16-5-2007 this Court has ordered appearance of the TMO, Korangi Town and adjourned the matter to 18-5-2007 at 8-30 a.m. On 18-5-2007 the TMO, Korangi Town appeared and he was directed to remove unauthorized encroachment in the whole area. It was complained by the petitioner's counsel that the petitioner's construction has been demolished under the garb of the order dated 8-3-2007. We have gone through the entire order and we do not find any direction of the Court demolishing the premises that are being used for the purpose other than for which these premises were being leased out. Again on 22-5-2007 the TMO, Korangi Town appeared and offered his explanation and he had stated that the premises of the petitioner were demolished on the ground that the petitioner was suing the premises for commercial purposes and the status of the premises as per the lease were residential, therefore, the K.B.C.A has demolished the same. Notices were issued to the officers of the K.B.C.A, who were responsible for demolition. Today, Munawwar Siddiqui, Town Building Control Officer has put in appearance and has placed before us a notice issued by the K.B.C.A under the signature of the Deputy Controller of Buildings, Korangi Town on 5-4-2007. The Town Building Control Officer states that on the basis of this notice the premises of the petitioner were demolished. We were informed by the petitioner's counsel that the notice dated 5-4-2007 has been issued by the Deputy Controller of Buildings and the said notice has been impugned in C.Ps. Nos.D-667, D-668 and D- 669 of 2007. According to, the learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court on 11-4-2007 has suspended these notices and the K.B.C.A has been served with the order of this Court on 24-4-2007 through bailiff. We have seen the endorsement of the bailiff and the stamp of the office of the Chief Controller of Buildings. According to the petitioner there are in all three premises and the K.B.C.A has issued notices to the petitioner in respect of all the three premises on 5-4-2007. All the three notices issued by the K.B.C.A were suspended by this Court and for the verification of that fact we have called the files of C.Ps. Nos.D-667, D-668 and D-669 of 2007 and seen that restraining orders of this Court were served upon the office of the Chief Controller of Buildings. With this background the K.B.C.A wilfully defying the orders of this Court passed in C.Ps. Nos.D-667, D-668 and D-669 of 2007 filed by the petitioner and on 17-5-2007 had demolished the premises under the garb of the order passed on 8-3-2007 in these proceedings. The TMO, Korangi Town states that he did not extend any assistance though on the last date of hearing he has made a statement that the order dated 8-3-2007 has been complied with. He was directed to remove the encroachment and the question of misusing of the land is not the subject of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance. It is for the K.B.C.A, who should have taken action, which they did by issuing notices, which notices were suspended. As of today, according to Munawwar Siddiqui, Town Building Control Officer, the Deputy Controller of Buildings Fayyaz Ahmed Alvi, who is on ex-Pakistan leave along with Sharif Ahmed Qureshi, Assistant Controller of Buildings, Azhar Khan, Buildings Inspector and Hasan Askari, Buildings Inspector accompanied the site and demolished the premises under his instructions pursuant to the said notice. He could not answer as to what is the effect of the order passed by this Court in C.Ps. Nos.D-667, D-668 and D-669 of 2007. He claims ignorance. Under these circumstances we are of the view that prima facie the allegations of contempt against these officers are established. We, therefore direct the Chief Controller of Buildings, who was communicated the order of this Court, Munawwar Siddiqui, Town Building Control Officer, Fayyaz Ahmed Alvi, Deputy Controller of Buildings, Sharif Ahmed Alvi, Deputy Controller of Building, Sharif Ahmed Qureshi, Assistant Controller of Buildings, Azhar Khan, Building Inspector, Hasan Askari, Buildings Inspector and Mukhtar Palejo, TMO, Korangi Town to be present in Court on the next date when this Court will frame the charge/against aforesaid officers. The Advocate-General, Sindh is directed to appear and assist this Court as prosecutor.