KARACHI: The Supreme Court directed revenue department to consider all applications, moved for transfer, mutation and allotment of such government land which has been computerized and reconstructed in compliance of the court order.
The direction came on identical applications seeking modification of court injunction that restricted allotment, mutation, transfer and conversion of state land till entire revenue record is computerized and reconstructed.
The Advocate General Sindh Salman Talibuddin submitted that various government development projects have came to halt due to Supreme Court 's restraining order issued on November 28, 2012.
He submitted that the majority of Sindh land record has been computerized and reconstructed however small factions of land in Thatta has not been reconstructed. He requested the court to direct revenue department to consider transfer of land to those government lands whose record has been computerized and reconstructed as various projects of public service are seriously affected due to such ban.
The SC’s three member bench headed by Justice Gulzar Ahmed observed that SC had restrained the Sindh government from mutation, allotment, transfer and or conversion of any state land and or keeping any transaction or entry in the record of rights in revenue record of Sindh, till the entire revenue record in Sindh is reconstructed.
The court observed that the restriction imposed on revenue department will be waived only after the compliance of the court order in letter and spirit. The court directed the revenue department to consider all such applications and make requisition in accordance with the law in which land record has been reconstructed and computerized.
Regarding extension of 30 years lease, the court observed that such matter could not be addressed at this stage as provincial government did not place any law for such extension before the court.
Meanwhile, Supreme Court has dismissed applications filed by various police personnel and officials removed from police service having patchy service record. The petitioners have challenged the service tribunal order and submitted that they were not provided opportunity of hearing in the inquiry process and removed from service.