1. ' SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, J.---Since the parties were duly represented before us we decided, by consent of all learned counsel, to admit this petition and dispose it of finally. Basically petitioner- association has alleged that the respondent No.2, in collusion with the staff of the respondents Nos.4 and 5 managed to acquire a lease in respect of 203.58 Sq. Yds. Of land beneath which a water supply line is passing. According to the petitioner such land is a part of a main road and even otherwise could not be leased out to any person in view of section 19(4) of the Sindh Katchi Abadies Act.
2. ' The respondents Nos.3 to 5 in their counter-affidavit presented in Court today have not disputed the contentions that such plot could not be lawfully allotted to the respondent No.2. On the other hand they have gone on to contend that the lease in favour of the respondent No.2 is a bogus and fictitious document and the officer of the respondent No.5 signing the aforesaid lease has already been removed from service for misconduct.
3. ' Mr. Muhammad Yaseen Kiyani, learned counsel for respondent No.2, however, denied the allegation that water line was passing beneath the plot and argued that the respondents Nos.3 to 5 have no lawful authority to cancel the registered lease in favour of the respondent No.2 without due process of law and as long as the document is not lawfully cancelled the property rights of the said respondent cannot be taken away. It has also been shown that apprehending unlawful action on the part of respondents Nos.3 to 5 the respondent No.2 filed the suit for injunction being Suit No.63 of 2002 before the IIIrd Senior Civil Judge, Karachi South, which is still pending.
4. Indeed, Mr. Kiyani's contention to the effect that the lease could not be cancelled without hearing the respondent No.2 and in accordance with the due process of law appears sound. We would, therefore, dispose of this petition with the observation that the respondents may resolve the question of validity of the lease either through the proceedings in the pending suit or otherwise as may be permissible under law. In any case, however, we would direct the respondents Nos.3 to 5 to take appropriate steps for resolution of the controversy within two months from today and till such time that the question is duly resolved by a proper forum the respondent No.2 is restrained from raising any construction or creating any third party interest in the property.
5. ' The petition stands disposed of alongwith the listed application.