' MAMOON KAZI, J.---This petition was allowed by us by a short order dated 6-2-1992 for reasons to be recorded separately. We now proceed to record our reasons.
2. The petitioner in this case is a Cooperative Housing Society which under a settlement duly approved by the Martial Law Administrator, Zone 'C' had been allotted by the Board of Revenue Government of Sindh 542 acres of land including 23 acres of land situated in Sector 18-B which fall within the limits of Housing Scheme No,33 in Taluka and District Karachi. An agreement of sale in respect of 542 acres of the said land was also executed between the petitioner and the Deputy Commissioner, Karachi East on behalf of the Government of Sindh and the petitioner thereafter was handed over physical possession of the entire piece and parcel of land. This land was finally transferred to the petitioner by the Government of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner, Karachi East vide Transfer Deed dated 19-2-1986.
3. The case of the petitioner is that its Town Planners M/s. A. Salam Associates prepared a layout plan in respect of Sector 18-B and submitted the same to the respondents for formal approval and thereafter in a joint meeting held on 26-2-1984 at the K.D.A. Site Office wherein representatives of the petitioner and the K.DA. Participated, a survey of Sector 18-B was jointly carried out and dimensions thereof were further verified and the site plan was also authenticated by the Assistant Executive Engineer of Karachi Development Authority (respondent No,1). The petitioner has also paid a sum of Rs,68,72,800 and another sum of Rs,2,62,32,800 to respondent No,1 for outer development of the aforesaid land.
4. The grievance of the petitioner now is that in order to deprive the petitioner of a portion of the said land situated at Sector 18-B, respondent No, .1 first declined to pass the layout plan of the petitioner in respect of the said area and subsequently has ordered the petitioner to give up the said land situated at Sector 18-B for which the respondents have no legal authority, and hence the petition.
5. Although the claim of the petitioner in regard to ownership of the land is not controverted by respondent No,1 according to the counter-affidavit filed on its behalf but, according to the said respondent, the planning of corridor of Scheme-33 has been prepared by the Design Bureau of the said respondent and the area falling within the limits of Sector 18-B is also included in the said Corridor. According to the respondents sufficient land is required to be reserved for construction of Clover-leaf Intersection at the junction of 200 feetwide road and Super High Way as per approved plan of Scheme-33. A playground is also to be planned in Sector 18-B. Therefors, according to the respondents, it was for such reasons that the petitioner was advised to exclude the area of the said land from their planning. The respondent has also offered alternate land within the Scheme-33 to the petitioner in lieu of the land utilised for the said corridor. At the very outset we asked Mr. S.M.
Nurul Hassan, learned counsel for the petitioner whether the petitioner was prepared to accept the alternate land offered by respondent No,1 but his answer was in the negative. So far as the action taken by the respondents is concerned, although it has not been controverted that the petitioner is the legal owner of the land in question, however, according to Mr. Kizilbash, learned counsel for respondents Nos,1-3, the portion referred to as Sector 18-B falls within the corridor of Scheme No,33 and, therefore, the petitioner was informed accordingly vide letter dated 6-10-1986 addressed by the respondent's Master Plan and Environmental Control Department to the petitioner.
6. After hearing Mr. Nurul Hassan and Mr. Kizilbash there is no question of any doubt that the action taken by the respondent is not warranted by law. Admittedly, the petitioner is the owner of the land which also includes Sector 18-B. In fact, the ownership of the land and allotment of its possession in favour of the petitioner is not denied. We fail to understand how respondent No,1 can deprive the petitioner of the land referred to as Sector 18-B when admittedly the said land has not been acquired by the respondents in accordance with the relevant Ian. Merely because the land in question falls within the corridor of Scheme-33 cannot give a legal right to the respondents to deprive the petitioner of a huge area of land. Mr. Kizilbash has not been able to advance a single convincing argument to justify the action taken by the respondents in the matter.
7. For the aforesaid reasons we would allow this petition holding the action taken by the respondents to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondents therefore, liable to return the land in question to the petitioner in the same condition in which the same was taken by them because admittedly the respondents have started building a road on the said land. The parties are, however, left to bear their own costs.