SHC dismisses plea against demolition drive in Sandspit area

The Sindh High Court on Thursday dismissed a petition against a proposed demolition drive by the Karachi Port Trust in the Sandspit area.

Petitioner Jamil Ahmed submitted that the KPT wanted to demolish his house situated on a plot along Sandspit Road in Younusabad village. The counsel submitted that the petitioner had purchased the plot from his predecessor, who himself held a registered power of sub-attorney registered on March 19, 2007.

A division bench comprising Justice Yousuf Ali Sayed and Ms. Sana Akram Minhas observed that by its nature and intendment, a power of attorney is a document of convenience. The court observed that it is a creation of an agency whereby the grantor authorizes the grantee to do the acts specified therein, on behalf of grantor, which when executed will be binding on the grantor as if done by him.

The court observed that it is a long-standing legal principle that a general power of attorney GPA, by itself, does not constitute a valid instrument of transfer for any right, title, or interest in immovable property under the law.

It also observed that even an irrevocable GPA coupled with interest does not have the effect of transferring title or conferring ownership upon the attorney or agent. The SHC stated that the law does not recognize such a GPA as a conveyance or a document of title, nor have the courts ever treated it as proof of ownership. In the absence of a duly registered sale deed, the title to immovable property does not legally transfer.

The judges observed that they were not convinced that an unregistered document in favour of the original grantee, Hassan Ali, who is petitioner’s alleged predecessor is sufficient to establish the pedigree of the petitioner's title.

The court observed that another aspect to consider is that the undated, unstamped, and unregistered document annexed to the petition purportedly shows that the subject plot was allegedly allotted by the government of Sindh to the original grantee that is petitioner’s predecessor under the Colonization of Government Lands (Sindh) Act, 1912.

It said the petition remains silent on the impact of the Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions, and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2001 (“Ordinance”), which was enacted by the government of Sindh with retrospective effect from January 1, 1985.

The court observed that under Section 3 of the Ordinance, all allotments, conversions, or exchanges of Government land – whether obtained or granted for residential, commercial, or industrial purposes – at rates lower than market value or in violation of legal provisions or a ban, including any subsequent transactions, stood mandatorily cancelled.

The court further observed that section 4 of the Ordinance however allowed affected parties to regularize their land by paying the differential amount to the government. It said that there was no indication of whether the petitioner’s alleged predecessors or the petitioner pursued any regularization process under this provision. The court observed that in the absence of a valid and subsisting title in the immovable property, the petitioner lacks the legal standing to maintain the petition. The court dismissed the petition in limine and also imposed Rs15,000 as cost which must be deposited into the account of the high court’s clinic.