Law: Karachi Development Authority Order, (5 of 1957)

Section: 3,4,8Schedpara.1

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 184(1)

Karachi Development Authority Order (P.O. 5 of 1957)--- ----Arts. 3, 4, 8 & Sched., para. 1---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 184(1)---Original jurisdiction of Supreme Court---Dispute as to ownership of land between Pakistan Railways and the Karachi Development Authority---Nature---Karachi Development Authority being a "local authority" and a distinct entity separate from the Provincial Government was not a Department of the Government and land claimed by the Authority was not a Government land---Dispute over such land between Pakistan Railways and the Authority thus could not be treated to be a dispute between the Federal Government and the Provincial Government so as to attract the exclusive original jurisdiction of Supreme Court under Art. 184(l), Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Muhammad Rashid Bhatti v. K.D.A. through its Secretary and another PLD 1986 Kar. 130; Karachi Development Authority v. Province of Sindh through the Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Karachi and 4 other PLD 1977 Kar. 152; Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Province of Punjab and others PLD 1975 SC 37; Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, Lahore v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Lahore Zone, Lahore, PLD 1976 Lah. 258 and State of Bihar v. Union of India and another AIR 1970 SC 1446 ref. JUDGMENT FAQIR MUHAMMAD KHOKHAR, J.---This appeal, by leave of the Court, is directed against the judgment dated 27-2-1997 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, whereby Revision Petition of respondent No. l was accepted and the injunctive order of the Trial Court as affirmed by the Appellate Court was vacated. 2. The appellant, Pakistan Railways, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents in the Court of IVth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (East). It was averred therein that the suit land as described in the plaint was owned by the appellant and reserved in the master plan of respondent No.l for mass transit project. In the suit it was prayed that the auction of the suit property by the respondents be declared to be illegal, mala fide and without lawful authority and they be restrained from giving effect to the…