ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.- By this common order,
(1) To declare that the respondents No. 1 & 2 are legally bound to carry our and act upon their resolution/notification passed by themselves duly sanctioned by Controlling Authority and also further bound to implement their commitments/undertaking made on oath before this Hon'ble Court;
(2) To declare that the act in demolition of the house premises of the petitioner and his forceful and illegal ejectment from the plot regularizeable in his name passed by this Hon'ble Court in the Constitution Petition No. D-681 of C.M.A. 1524/94 dated 20-3-1994 is illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority.
(3) To declare that th petitioner is still the owner/owner-in-possession entitled for lease in respect of his house premises shown and declared by the respondent No. 1 in their own approved plan drawn for this purpose.
(4) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to be restored to his legal possession ante dated 20-3- 1994 to his house premises as he has been illegally removed in contravention of the orders of this Hon'ble Court.
(5) To declare that the respondents No. I & 2 and any person acting through or under them have no authority to demolish and or had no authority in the act of demolition and or dismantling and/or for forceful ejectment of the petitioner from his legal possession of his house premises and such acts committed by the respondents are illegal and without lawful authority as the same plot/land of the petitioner has been declared to be katchi abadi; and that the petitioner and other residents are entitled to such lease as has been granted to others as this plot of the petitioner is duly covered in the Resolution No. PC (L,LL/6386/75) dated 23-10-1975 and for which the approved lay out plan has already been issued under the due approval of K.D.A! Under its no Objection Letter No: 18/17/7/TP/62/1534 dated 20-3-1974.
(6) To issue writ of mandamus by directing the respondents No. 1 & 2 to execute lease in favour of the petitioner after fulfilling formalities and if so essential to direct the official of this Hon'ble Court to do needful in accordance to law.
(7) Any other relief/reliefs as deemed fit and suitable in the circumstances of this suit and to award compensation/loss/damages caused to the petitioner after its due calculation through the officials of this Hon'ble Court,"
The case of the petitioners briefly is that the respondents No. 1 & 2 are bound to carry out and comply with the contents of the Resolution passed and approved by the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation on 24-4-1976. It is further contended that earlier the petitioners had filed a Constitutional Petition seeking identical relief which was disposed of on the ground that all the petitioners therein may institute their individual petitions which shall be tagged alongwith the said petition. Consequently these eight petitions have been instituted these petitions. It is also urged that in the said earlier petition an undertaking was given by the respondent No. 1 to the effect that "as per lay out plan of the area known as BAKRA PEERI, LYARI" the regularziable structure and leaded out plots are not going to be disturbed/shifted or removed". In view of the above undertaking, the learned counsel for the petitioners has vehement!) argued that this undertaking amounts to acceptance by the respondent? No. I and 2 that, they will regularise the possession of the present petitioners, who are in occupation of portions of Plots No. 857, 858, 859 and others as mentioned in each petition. It is also argued that recently the respondents have leased out Plot No. 851 to a private-respondent and, therefore, they are being discriminated against by not regularizing their possession over the said plot. Mr. Muhammad Yasin Kiyani. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No. I and Mr. K.M. Nadeem. The learned Assistant Advocate General for respondent No. 2 have vehemently opposed the petitions. Mr. Muhammad Yasin Kiyani, Advocate has pointed out from the counter-affidavit filed by Zubair Ahmed Mughal,, the Assistant Director in the Land Department of K.M.C, that the space occupied by the petitioners is a part of a big amenity plot and, therefore, the same cannot be regularised in favour of the petitioners. The lay out plan of the area has been produced by the petitioners as annexure-D which shows that the area occupied by the petitioners is situate at a considerabale distance from the said Plot No. 851 allegedly leased out to another person. This large plot, being an amenity plot, the same cannot be regularised and granted to a private person under the Katchi Abadf Scheme. In these circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioners have no right for regularization of the said plots in their favour.
2. Mr.K M. Nadeem the learned Assistant Advocate General has adopted the arguments of Mr Muhammed Yasin Kiyani, Advocate and has further submitted that in this case admittedly the petitioners have not approached any of the Authorities for regularization before filing of these petitions. He has pointed out that the reliefs sought by the petitioners is for issuance of writ of mandamus which in such circumstances cannot be issued unless such approach has been made to the concerned Authority. No doubt a prayer for writ of mandamus must be preceded by demand of justice. The party seeking such relief has to show that he had approached the concerned Authority for grant of the relief which was declined. Reliance can be placed on the case of DISTRICT MAGISTRATE LAHORE VS. SVED RAZA KAZIM (PLD. 1961 S.C. 178).
3. In view of the above discussions, we find no merits in these petitions, which are accord jnglwdismissed alongwith Misc, applications.