1. Granted.
2. Commissioner's report is taken on record.
3. The contention of the petitioner is that Plot No,IV-B-2/12-A, Nazimabad, Karachi, has wrongly been converted as residential plot and allotted to respondent No,4. He has pointed out that the said plot has been created by CDGK whereas the same was used ,as park in the past, therefore, the Authority has no power to convert that amenity into park. A He has pointed out that earlier, Suit No,63 of 1969 was filed in respect to the same plot in which certain orders were passed and appeal against the said order was also dismissed. The petitioners are living in the said premises and have no knowledge about the conversion of the plot or its auction as claimed by the respondents and they came to know only after when respondent No,4 started construction.
' On the other hand, Mr. Syed Abdul Raoof, learned counsel for the respondent No,4 as well as Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, learned counsel for CDGK have stated jointly that the contention of the petitioner is totally incorrect. They pointed out their counter-affidavit especially counter-affidavit filed on behalf of CDGK and state that there was no plot as claimed by the petitioner but a plot has been created and number IV-B2/13 has been allotted to him, which is in sequence of other plots. He submits that it was not an amenity plot and even the plan relied upon by the petitioner also shows that it is a created plot and that was auctioned through newspapers and respondent No,4 succeeded in getting it about two years before. They submit that everything has been done openly.
Inspection Report of Nazir also corroborates the version of respondents counsel. Learned counsel for the respondent No,4 has also pointed out that one Shaheen Iqbal Hashmi has filed Suit No,560 of 2007 in the Court of Civil Judge in respect to the same plot and the same is also pending. Mr. Mirza Sarfraz Ahmed, learned counsel for the petitioner when confronted with the situation then he stated that he has no information about the pendency of that suit.
' After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the plaint in Suit No,63 of 1969 as well as judgment have also been perused and both of them do not support the contentions of the petitioner. The said judgment shows that the plaintiff in that suit should not be evicted without due process of law and that has been upheld in Appeal No,59 of 1995. There is no material to support the contentions of the petitioner while the factual position relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondents supports the versions of respondent as the plot was openly auctioned and sold out to respondent No,4 while it was a created plot and not amenity plot. In the above circumstances, the petition is dismissed along with listed-applications.