1. ' In this petition, the petitioners have sought directions from this Court to the C.D.G.K. For reallocation of plots etc. And to perform their statutory duty. It has been stated that the petitioners have purchased the plots in 1993 in auction of which detail has been given in paragraph 5 of the petition but despite that purchase, the respondent C.D.G.K. Has not given them the possession of the plots or alternate plots.
2. ' Mr. Naraindas C. Motiani, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the matter remained in pendency due to HR Case No,6-K of 1993 before the Honourable Supreme Court but since the matter has been settled, therefore, the petitioners have right to claim the property. He has also submitted that petitioners were intervenors before the Honourable Supreme Court and in their presence following order was passed:--- "The parties have stated at the Bar that this Human Rights Case be disposed of because the matter is being settled and negotiated among them. Mr. Najamul Hassan Kazmi, Advocate Supreme Court has moved an application for being impleaded as a party. We are not in a position to pass any order thereon. However, during settlement he and all other interested parties can be associated. In the above terms this Human Rights Case stands disposed of. The City District Government, Karachi shall submit compliance report before this Court within three months."
3. ' He submits that following the order of Honourable Supreme Court there were certain negotiation and a report dated 14-5-2005 was prepared and submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court but even after report, the plots have not been handed over to the petitioners and that, the report cannot take away the rights of the petitioners in respect to the plots.
4. ' On the other hand, Mr. Manzoor Ahmed submits that Honourable Supreme Court took up the matter of Gutter Baghaicha in H.R. Case (ibid) and each and every act on the part of C.D.G.K. Was merged in terms of the directions of the Honourable Supreme Court following which a report dated 14-5-2005 was prepared and submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court and each and every person, prior to finalization of the report by the C.D.G.K., was given opportunity to represent his view. He submits that the said report, submitted before the Honourable Supreme Court, was challenged by way of a contempt application by other persons but that contempt application was dismissed by order, dated 1-11-2006, therefore, C.D.G.K. Cannot go contrary to report, which has not been altered or amended by the Honourable Supreme Court.
5. ' After hearing the learned counsel we observed that the matter was taken up by the Honourable Supreme Court in H.R. Case, keeping in view the value of the land and to save it from ongoing encroachment or illegal allotment. We are conscious that Honourable Supreme Court was fully aware of each and every factual position when it passed orders on 29-5-2003 with the direction to C.D.G.K. For submission of detailed report, which was submitted and was not disturbed even when the objections raised by other interested parties and contempt application was dismissed by following orders of 1-11-2006.
6. "We have heard the learned counsel for parties and have considered their viewpoint put forward by them in support of their respective contentions but in our considered opinion the allegations and counter-allegations levelled by them against each other does not constitute a contempt of the order of this Court dated 29th May, 2003. Therefore, to further action is called for. The criminal original petition as well as we Human Rights Case are disposed of."
7. ' In the light of the above we are of the considered view that each and every factua position, prior to the above order of Honourable Supreme Court dated 29-5-2007 was merged into that order and after the non-interference in the report, which was submitted in compliance of the above order, confirms that report was to be implemented and nothing else. Therefore, the claim of the petitioners that they still have claim in respect to some plots, contrary to Report, cannot be entertained as same will amount to interference in the report, which has even not been interfered by the Honourable Supreme Court. The petitioners could approach the Honourable Supreme Court at the relevant time but he chooses not to do that, therefore, this Court cannot go away from its limitation to interfere in the Report hence the petition has no force, it was dismissed by a short order dated 13-2-2008 and above a e. The reasons for the same.