' ZULFIQAR AHMAD KHAN, J. This petition is directed against the letter issued by the Respondent No, 2 dated 10-11-2015 ("impugned letter " ) whereby earlier regularization of certain commercial /residential land was withdrawn/ cancelled stating the following as the grounds for the above cancellation:
(a) the applicant purchased the above land in Sector-43 as per Sale Deed registered vide R.D.
No,9532 dated 16-12-2006; and
(b) the applicant has filed a Suit No, 683/2009, wherein the Honourable High Court of Sindh also granted status-quo vide order dates 25-05-2009.
2. Brief facts of the case are that land measuring 06-00 acres from Sector 43-A in favour of Mr. Hamid (alias) Bisham s/o Kamil Khan and 08-00 acres land from Scheme 33, Karachi in favour of Shoukat Hussain son of Muhammad Hussain was leased out on 99 years lease for residential/commercial purposes at the rate of Rs.100/- per sq.Yd. Vide orders dated 30.01.1995 and 20.09.1994 respectively. After completion of all formalities, land measuring 11-15 acres viz 06-00 acres in Sector 43-A Deh Doozan and 05-15 acres out of said 08-00 acres land in Scheme 33, Karachi was regularized in favour of Mr. Asif Mehmood Malik son of Malik Muhammad Shafi at the rate of Rs.10,64,800/- per acre vide orders quoted under reference above.
3. In this respect, the Director, SS&LR Sindh vide his letter dated 17.03.2012 and the Survey Superintendent vide his letter dated 17.03.2012 prepared the demarcation plan. During the measurement carried out in presence of concerned parties, Mukhtiarkar Scheme 33 and Supervising Tapedar it was found that out of the total 11-15 acres of the land in question, 00-32 ghuntas falls in NC No,21 of Deh Doozan and 10-23 acres falls in Deh Mehran (detailed as 00-30 ghuntas in abandoned path, 04-06 acre in Nakabuli No,260 of Deh Mehran, 00-24 ghuntas in NK.No, 513, 00-01 ghunta NK.No,472, 01-32 acre in NK.No,261 and 02-31 acres in NK.No,188 of Deh Mehran) totaling an area of 10-36 acres instead of 11-15 acres as stated above since an area of 01-08 acres of NK.No,463 in Deh Mehran was in dispute which was pending in the Hon'ble High Court of Sindh.
Having come to the above founding, the Survey Superintendent appropriately recommended for issuance of corrigendum as well as calling for the payment of the differential amount at the rate of Rs.10,64,800/- per acre in respect of Del Doozan, whereas reportedly the land measuring 10-23 acres fell in Deh Mehran.
4. Accordingly, the matter was placed before the Lands, Committee which in its meeting held on 17.04.2012, decided to regularize the land in question on payment of balance Malkano at the rate of Rs.27,97,520/- per acre which was duly paid by the Petitioners' predecessors. Pursuant to the promulgation of the Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversations and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000 allotment in respect of the land in question stood cancelled. However after payment of further differential Malkano under section 4(2) of the said Ordinance, as determined by the Committee under Rule 3(1) of Sindh Government Lands (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Rules 2003 at the rate of Rs.27,97,520/- per acre in respect of said 10-23 acres situated in Deh Mehran vide his letter dated 25-05-2012, Secretary Land Utilization in pursuance of section 5 of the said Ordinance regularized/restored 10-23 acres of land situated in Deh Mehran in the name of the Petitioners' predecessors.
5. Out of the blue, vide his letter dated 29-09-2015 (after a lapse of more than three years)
Respondent No, 2 cancelled the said regularization letter dated 25-05-2012 on the ground that the change of Deh from Deh Doozan to Deh Mahran was without the approval of the competent Authority i.e,, Chief Minister Sindh. The Petitioners being aggrieved of the said letter, approached the Respondent No,2 and showed to him the documents in their possession proving that the change of Deh was neither requested by them nor does it make any change in the real location on the map of the land in question as this mere super imposition of an existing land from one Deh to another does not make any material change. Upon their submissions, the Respondent No, 2 vide his letter dated 07-10-2015 withdrew its letter dated 29-09-2015 restoring the regularization letter dated 25.05.2012.
6. In the backdrop of these suddenly changing situation, the Petitioners was shocked when they received the impugned letter issued by the Respondent No, 2 dated 10-11-2015 cancelling his letter dated 07-10-2015 stating the reasons cited in the opening paragraph. The Petitioners have reached this Hon'ble Court for declaration that the impugned letter which is issued in colorable exercises of power, in excess of authority be regarded as nullity in the eyes of law as it is violative of principle of natural justice and of no legal effect and void ab initio and as such liable for cancellation.
7. Vide its Order dated 17.11.2015 this Hon'ble Court appointed Nazir to visit the site and prepare a report to the state of affairs, especially as regards the stage of construction being carried out by the Petitioners at the land in question which is taken on the record.
8. When inquired, the learned Counsel for Respondent No, 2 informed the Court that the only reason behind the issuance of the impugned letter is that a Suit No, 683 of 2009 between the current Petitioners and some other claimants is pending adjudication, and the impugned letter is issued merely by way of abundant precaution by Respondent No, 2 so that in case of any adverse orders, the Respondent could safeguard himself from any future contempt of court proceedings.
9. We find the said reasoning frivolous and devoid of any cogent rationale, particularly when issuance of the impugned letter has undoubtedly tinted and seemingly affected prior rights of the Petitioners, no such letter ought to have been issued on these mere flimsy grounds in the grab of anticipated contempt of court proceedings. The impugned letter seems to us an attempt to seek anticipatory injunction against any future contempt of court proceedings to be commenced against the Respondent No,
2. We make no findings in this connection and we are of the view that the issue must be dealt in due course when it arises, in the event it arises at all, be that as it may, the Respondent cannot be allowed to take benefit of these proceedings. We therefore find this effort to seek exercise of the court's jurisdiction to restrain an anticipated contempt premature at the cost of Petitioners' prior rights an abuse of the process of law. In the light thereof we find no reasons to give any legality to the contents of the impugned letter, which is nullity in the of law, thus void ab initio and no effect to be given to it so as to cause adverse and prejudicial effects on the prior rights of the Petitioners and therefore the impugned letter is hereby cancelled to the extent, as if it was never written. Nothing stated in the above order shall prejudicially affect the rights of the parties on merits which are to be determined in the Suit No, 683 of 2009, or in any other cases pending in respect of the property in question, except to the extent of orders made hereinabove.
10. The present ,constitutional petition is allowed accordingly.