SHC sets aside 2012 order of then governor in land allotment case

The Sindh High Court (SHC) on Tuesday set aside a 13-year-old order of the then governor rejecting the provincial ombudsman’s direction to the Lines Area Redevelopment Project (Larp) to provide the petitioner with an alternative commercial plot in lieu of the plot she was occupying.

An SHC division bench headed by Justice Mohammad Iqbal Kalhoro also remanded back the matter to the governor to re-hear the parties and pass a detailed order addressing the issue of limitation, besides the merits of the case, within three months.

Petitioner Mubarak Fatima had challenged the governor’s 2012 order allowing the representation filed by Larp against the ombudsman’s decision issued in her favour in June 1994.

Her counsel said his client was the owner of a hotel located on MA Jinnah Road in the 1960’s, and the lease of her land and other hotels were withdrawn by the government for constructing a five-star hotel.

He said the five-star hotel project was later abandoned, and one of the hotel owners was given land on auction prices while his client was deprived from such right.

He also said his client filed a complaint with the ombudsman, which ordered Larp to provide her with an alternative plot in lieu of the plot she was occupying.

The counsel said the then governor’s order was unlawful, as under Section 32 of the Establishment of the Office of Ombudsman for the Province of Sindh Act, 1991, an appeal against an order of the ombudsman has to be filed with the governor within 30 days.

He said the decision in the present case was given by the ombudsman in 1994, while the representation/appeal against it was filed after 12 years in 2006.

He also said the appeal was time-barred but the then governor proceeded to hear the matter and decided it against the petitioner, without addressing or deciding the question of limitation raised by the petitioner.

The counsel said the then governor’s order is sketchy, as no reasoning has been provided by him that led him to arrive at the impugned conclusion.

He said that even the pleadings and submissions made by the petitioner have not been recorded by the then governor in the order, which violates the relevant provision of the General Clauses Act, which enjoins the authority to give reasons in favour of findings.

Although the additional advocate general supported the impugned order, he admitted that the pleas raised by the petitioner have not been addressed by the then governor in a proper and judicial manner.

After hearing the arguments of the counsel, the court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the governor to re-hear the parties and pass a detailed order addressing the issue of limitation, besides the merits of the case, within three months.