Disagreement surfaces in SHC over Chowkandi graveyard’s size

Karachi
Exactly how big is the Chowkandi graveyard? There was a disagreement over the size of the historical graveyard situated 29 kilometres east of Karachi during a Sindh High Court hearing on Monday over a petition seeking the removal of encroachments from its land.
The petitioner, Agha Syed Attaullah Shah, moved the court against encroachments and lack of proper care of the cemetery located on the National Highway near Landhi.
He said it was a precious national heritage spread over almost 57 acres. He pointed out that Chowkandi had been a family graveyard of the Jokhio and Baloch tribes which lived in the area from the 15th to 18th centuries.
He alleged that influential people were taking away carved stones from the graveyard to use them as decoration pieces in the drawing rooms of their homes. He said people were also encroaching upon the graveyard land to build hotels, houses and offices of truck stands, but the chief secretary, the culture secretary and the Malir Development Authority were taking no action to stop those illegal activities.
The complainant said the graveyard was in a dilapidated condition. He further alleged that the respondents were not performing their duties, as required under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994 and the National Fund for Cultural Heritage Ordinance 1994.
He asked the high court to direct the government to ensure the maintenance of the graveyard and remove encroachments from there.
The petitioner also requested the court to direct the heritage department to file a statement regarding the expenditure of funds for the maintenance of the heritage site.
The deputy commissioner of Malir informed the high court through a report that the graveyard was spread over 25 acres instead of 57 acres, as claimed by the petitioner.
The court told the petitioner to furnish a reply after going through the report of the deputy commissioner so that the controversy could be resolved.
Earlier, the court was informed that some influential people had buried bodies of their relatives in the protected area of the Chowkandi graveyard despite resistance from the archeology department.
The secretary of the archeology department had submitted in comments that the department was fully aware of the importance of the conservation of historical monuments and it had qualified archeologists, conservators and archeological engineers.
He had said that conversation of the Chowkandi tombs would be carried out in line with the set procedure of conversation prevalent worldwide.
Regarding the preservation of the historical graveyard, he had submitted that the deterioration process due to the ravages of time was a natural process which could be controlled by taking preventive steps, including day-to-day maintenance.
According the secretary, an annual development programme scheme for the protection of archeological sites has been prepared and it will be executed as and when the required funds are released by the authorities.
He had submitted that emergency conservation, including the provision of a fence round the Chowkandi graveyard, would be carried.
The court was told that appropriate action, including the construction of a boundary wall, was being taken for the safeguard, maintenance and conversation of tombs, and that the department was in touch with the district administration to remove the encroachments from beyond the limits of the protected monuments.

Encroachments’ removal
The SHC gave further time to the administrator of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation to remove encroachments from and around Jahangir Park in Saddar.
The court was hearing identical petitions against an unlawful construction at the historical park.
The petitioners submitted that the Supreme Court, while deciding a suo moto case, had ordered the now defunct City District Government Karachi to restore the status of the public park and develop it; however, an encroachment was being made by private persons.
They said the park should be developed for public welfare without any unlawful construction. The court at a previous hearing had summoned the KMC administrator to explain non-compliance with orders for the removal of the encroachment.
The administrator appeared before the court and assured it that all encroachments would be removed by October 31. The court, granting more time, directed the KMC administrator to ensure compliance with its directives by October 31.