Key facts
- Court
- High Court of Sindh, Karachi
- Case no.
- High Court Appeal No. 82 of 2007 and 21 connected appeals (2007 and 2010)
- Bench
- Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Ms. Sana Akram Minhas; judgment written by Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, J.
- Date of decision
- Not stated on the copy (heard in May 2024)
- Outcome
- Appeals dismissed, along with pending applications; the trial court judgments were upheld.
- Counsel
- Mr. Amjad Ali, advocate for the appellants in H.C.A. Nos. 248 to 250 of 2010
- We acted for
- Appellant Karachi Port Trust (in H.C.A. Nos. 248 to 250 of 2010)
Personal details such as CNIC numbers, phone numbers, home addresses and FIR numbers are redacted in the PDF.
Background
About 22 suits were filed by private parties who claimed that land in the Hawkesbay Road / Trans Lyari area of Karachi had been granted to them by the Land Utilization Department, Board of Revenue, Government of Sindh. They sought declarations of ownership and lawful possession, and injunctions restraining the Karachi Port Trust (KPT) from dispossessing them.
The suits were decided by two judgments. One set was decreed by judgment dated 22.02.2007. The other set was dismissed by a common judgment dated 09.08.2010, which observed that the land belonged to the Government of Sindh, whose allotments had been cancelled under Sindh Ordinance III of 2001. KPT, through its Chairman, appealed against both judgments in this bunch of 22 High Court Appeals.
KPT's case
KPT argued that the trial court did not need to declare the land to belong to the Government of Sindh when dismissing the second set of suits. It argued that the land was salt land under sea water that "vested" in KPT under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, and that the Karachi region had at one time been part of the Federal Capital. In one appeal KPT also applied under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to produce additional evidence.
The Court's reasoning
Additional evidence. The parties, including KPT, had agreed at trial to decide the case on a single issue on the documents, without oral evidence. The application was filed in 2024, after about 14 years of pendency, so the Court dismissed it.
Ownership. Under the KPT Act, the Court held, KPT is a statutory body created to manage the port within the Act's framework, not to own land as it sees fit. Sections 25 to 27 allow it to acquire and hold property "for the purposes of this Act", and KPT had not shown that the subject land fell within Schedule A or was held for those purposes. "Vesting" for administration and management does not make the Board the owner. The Court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in the Naimatullah Khan case, earlier High Court decisions, and an Indian decision on the vesting of port property. It held that neither the 1940 nor the 1991 port-limit notification conferred proprietary rights on KPT. It declined to decide the effect of Ordinance III of 2001, since no such issue had been framed.
Outcome
The Court saw no reason to interfere with the impugned judgments. The appeals were dismissed along with pending applications.
Why it matters
MSA Law Chamber appeared for KPT in three of the connected appeals, and the result went against KPT. The judgment is a detailed statement of the difference between a statutory body's control and management of land and ownership of it. It also shows how agreeing at trial to decide a case on documents alone can limit later attempts to add evidence on appeal.
Frequently asked questions
Facing a land or property dispute?
Speak to our property and constitutional law advocates. Call or WhatsApp +92 308 2254647 (Monday to Saturday, 11:00 am to 7:30 pm), or send an enquiry through our contact page.
This page is a plain-English summary of a reported decision, prepared from the judgment itself. It is general information, not legal advice, and every case depends on its own facts. The summary does not add to or interpret the judgment; please refer to the full text (PDF) for the court's exact words.