The Sindh High Court (SHC) has restrained police and the security incharge of a heritage-declared property Merwan Lodge situated in Parsi Colony from causing harassment to a woman and observed that if the culture, tourism, antiquities and archives department intended to take any action with regard to the property of the petitioner, it would be subject to the premise of the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994.
The direction came on a petition of Syeda Farah Deeba against harassment and interference in her private life. She had submitted that she was residing in a building known as Merwan Lodge, Parsi Colony, Jamshed Quarters, which was declared as heritage property by the culture department.
She submitted that she had also filed a suit for the enforcement of certain rights relating to the property. A counsel for the petitioner submitted that she was undertaking certain repair works in the house, which was her fundamental right being the owner of the house. The SHC was informed that a private respondent, who was the security incharge of the colony, had raised objection to such renovation and on his instance, the Soldier Bazaar SHO had been harassing the petitioner off and on.
The security incharge of the colony, Syed Shujaat Ali, submitted that his counsel was reported to be out of city. The Soldier Bazaar SHO submitted that the house wherein the petitioner was residing has been declared as protected heritage and the petitioner could not undertake the repair works except by permission from the concerned department.
The police officer denied causing harassment to the petitioner, and stated that he had performed his duties in accordance with the law. The security incharge submitted that the petitioner, who was not a Parsi, was causing problems, therefore, the security available at Parsi Colony was always vigilant. He denied that harassment had been caused to the petitioner.
A single bench of the SHC comprising Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbro observed that since the issue involved in the petition was a residential house which was a protected heritage falling within the domain of the culture, antiquities and archives department, the petitioner, if she was willing to undertake any renovation, had to do it in accordance with the law and the parameters fixed for the protection of the heritage property.
The SHC observed that police and the security incharge could not in any manner intervene into the private affairs of the petitioner and they could not harass her, however, the police officer could take any action within the premise of the law.
The SHC directed the respondents to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with the law and ensure that no harassment was caused to the petitioner. The bench added that if the culture department intended to take any action with regard to the property, it would be subject to the premise of the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act 1994.
The security incharge submitted that after the filing of this petition and in terms of an earlier order passed by the court, he was even not allowed to visit the other properties.
The SHC observed that since the court did not pass any order restraining the security incharge from supervising the other properties of Parsi Colony and he was only restrained from interfering in the repair works carried out by the petitioner, therefore, he may continue supervising the properties of Parsi Colony in terms of the by-laws of the society. The SHC observed that the petitioner may approach the SSP concerned if the SHO took the law in his own hands so that the SSP may take action in accordance with the law.