KARACHI: The Sindh High Court on Tuesday extended the stay order on the demolition of houses on leased land along the Orangi and Gujjar nullahs till June 1.
During the proceedings of the case, the SHC instructed the Sindh government and Karachi Metropolitan Corporation to submit documents, proving the Supreme Court had ordered the demolition of leased properties.
The SHC bench stated that the top court’s verdict did not give any such instructions. Responding to SHC’s query, the lawyer representing the KMC said that the Supreme Court will hear the case on May 24 and instructions would become more clear then.
The court stated that the officers who approved the lease should be held accountable. The authorities should file cases against such officers rather than demolishing people’s houses.
On May 7, the Sindh High Court (SHC) had directed authorities concerned to stop any demolition of leased properties built along the Gujjar and Orangi stormwater drains from being carried out until the issue was heard in the Supreme Court.
The SHC instructed the Sindh govt to seek clarification from the Supreme Court on its order regarding encroachments and the parties in the petition to place their relevant documents before the court.
During a hearing today the petitioners’ lawyer said that the SC had ordered the removal of encroachments however, there was nothing in the SC order about the removal of occupants from properties that had been given the lease of 99 years by the former City District Government, Karachi under the Sindh Katchi Abadis Act 1987.
The petitioners’ counsel, Faisal Siddiqui argued that besides the demolition of homes, the Sindh government, the National Disaster Management Authority, and Karachi Metropolitan Corporation wanted to construct a 30-foot-wide road on both sides of the two nullahs’ banks.
Faisal Siddiqui further argued that this plan had not been brought to the knowledge of the SC and that no consent had been approved for the construction of the roads. “Yet the respondents have begun marking the properties for demolition,” the petitioner’s counsel added.
