Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2025 SHC 2358
Court / Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court
Petitioner: Const. P. 1094/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur - Gulzar (Petitioner)
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 2358. In this matter between Const. P. 1094/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur - Gulzar (Petitioner) and the Respondent, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 1094/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur CITATION: 2025 SHC SUK 2358 PARTIES: Gulzar (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 08-SEP-25 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro(Author) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, BENCH AT SUKKUR
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025
along with C.P No.D-1076 of 2025, C.P No.D-1094 of 2025, C.P No.D-1110 of 2025, C.P No.D-1145 of 2025, C.P No.D-1148 of 2025, C.P No.D-1215 of 2025, C.P No.D-1231 of 2025, C.P No.D-1347 of 2025 C.P No.D-1143 of 2025
PRESENT: Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar Mr. Justice Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro
Petitioners : Through Mr. Badaruddin Memon, 1. Hazoor Bux son of Rasool Advocate Bux Mahar 2. Sikandar Ali son of Hazoor Bux Mahar 3. Ashiq Ali son of Moula Bux Mahar 4. Abdul Ghaffar son of Moula Bux Mahar 5. Rasool Bux son of Moula Bux Mahar in C.P No.D-1053 of 2025
Petitioners : Through Ms. Rizwana Parveen 1. Fozia Mahar wife of Memon, Advocate Badaruddin 2. Samina Naz Abbasi wife of Abdul Karim in C.P No.D-1076 of 2025
Petitioner : Through Mr. Badaruddin Memon, Gulzar son of Eidan Mahar Advocate in C.P No.D-1094 of 2025
Petitioner : Through Mr. Saifur Rehman Naich, Taj Mohammad Soomro son Advocate of Nazar Mohammad in C.P No.D-1110 of 2025
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 2 of 17
Petitioner : Through Mr. Wajid Ali Shaikh, Sikandar Ali son of Sher Advocate Mohammad Mahar in C.P No.D-1145 of 2025
Petitioners : Through Mr. Badaruddin Memon, 1. Manzoor Ahmed son of Advocate Maqbool Ahmed Mangrio 2. Allahando Khan son of Maqbool Ahmed Mangrio in C.P No.D-1148 of 2025
Petitioner : Through Ms. Rizwana Parveen Farhan Ali son of Mushtaq Ali Memon, Advocate Chandio in C.P No.D-1215 of 2025
Petitioner : Through Mr. Saifullah Soomro, Aashir Masood son of Masood Advocate Rasool Mahar in C.P No.D-1231 of 2025
Petitioner : Through Ms. Rizwana Parveen Nida wife of Wajahat Ali Memon, Advocate in C.P No.D-1347 of 2025
Petitioner : In person Sahib Dino son of Rajb Ali Tanweri in C.P No.D-1143 of 2025
Respondents : Through Mr. Ali Raza Baloch, Addl. Advocate General, Sindh along with Mr. Naveed Ahmed Mirani, ADC -I, Sukkur
Date of Hearing : 26.08.2025
Date of Judgment : 08.09.2025
Date of Announcement : 11.09.2025
---------------------------------------
J U D G M E N T
Nisar Ahmed Bhanbhro, J. We propose to decide the fate of captioned petitions, through this common Judgment, as all the petitions involve common question of law and facts.
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 3 of 17
2. The Petitioners through these petitions (except CPD 1143 of 2025 Re. Sahib Dino V. PO Sindh and others) have questioned the order dated 27.06.2025 (impugned order) whereby the Administrator cattle colony Sukkur / Assistant Commissioner Sukkur has cancelled provisional allotment of cattle pans assigning different reasons.
3. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners, contended that the Petitioners were all otted cattle pan in the Cattle Colony Sukkur in year 2023. They remained in peaceful possession of the plot/ pan since the date of allotment. The Administrator Cattle Colony Sukkur through impugned Orders has cancelled the allotment without assigning any c ogent reasons. Learned Counsel argued that the Petitioners were engaged in Dairy Business. The Petitioners opened cattle sheds in Sukkur city for commercial purposes. Learned Counsel argued that Government established Cattle Colony Sukkur for shifting catt le sheds from city area. Learned Counsel argued that Petitioners established cattle pan but did not shift animals as adequate facilities were not available in the cattle colony. Learned Counsel argued that allotment of female petitioners was cancelled on t he score that their husbands were allotted plots in the cattle colony. Learned Counsel contended that female petitioners were engaged in dairy business independently and cancellation of allotment on such ground was not tenable under the law. Learned Counse l argued that Petitioners were not dealt in accordance with law, which violated fundamental rights as to business. They prayed for withdrawing the cancellation orders and restoration of plots.
4. Learned Additional Advocate General, controverting the subm issions argued that the Petitioners were allotted the cattle pan for specific purpose under terms and conditions that they would construct and establish the cattle pan but they failed. He argued that the Petitioners violated the terms and conditions of the allotment; therefore, the allotment was cancelled and fresh process of allotment was initiated. He contended that Petitioners were given show cause notice and after affording them the right of audience, allotment was cancelled. He argued that the right to business and profession was fundamental right of the Petitioners but it was subject to the restrictions, that may be imposed by the government. He contended that there was no illegality in the impugned order. He contended that the Petitions were not maintainable. He prayed for the dismissal of the Petitions.
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 4 of 17
5. Heard arguments, perused material made available before us on record.
6. Scanning of the record revealed that the issue of shifting of the cattle sheds from Sukkur city was agitated before this court through Petition No D 99 of year 2008. Learned Division Bench of this Court, time and again issued directions to make Sukkur a cattle free city. The government of Sindh, pursuant to the directions of this Court, established cattle colony on 90 acres land. The cattle colony is established to remove animals from the residential areas of City, which caused huge disturbance in traffic flow and posed potential threat to the cleanliness of roads. In all 205 plots under four categories were carved out in the cattle colony, in the following manner:
Plot Categories No of Plots Size of Plots Category A 11 Plots 22,000 sq ft or more Category B 64 Plots 14000-20000 sq ft Category C 75 Plots 9500-14000 sq ft Category D 55 Plots 2500-9500 sq ft
7. Learned Additional Advocate General has placed on record a notification dated 11.04.2025 issued by the Deputy Commissioner Sukkur, whereby Scrutiny Committee headed by Additional Deputy Commissioner I Sukkur with Assistant Commissioner New Sukkur, Mukhtiar kar New Sukkur, Mukhtiarkar City Sukkur, Veterinary Officer Livestock Sukkur, Assistant Executive Engineer, SMC Sukkur, Supervising Tapedar New Sukkur and Tapedar Arain Tapa New Sukkur as members was constituted with following Terms of References (TORs):
i. The Committee Shall physically verify the present occupant of cattle pan in cattle colony New Sukkur
ii. The Committee shall verify and categorize the cattle pans in the cattle colony as under: a. Allottees outside Sukkur District b. Cattle pans not established c. Allotments made to wife and husband d. Cattle pans rented out / sublet by the allottees iii. The Committee shall point out encroachments made on amenity plots, iv. The Committee shall put forth recommendations for new allotments v. The Committee shall ver ify the payments made by the allottee in Government Ex-chequer vi. The Committee shall scrutinize the revenue record of cattle colony.
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 5 of 17
vii. Any violation /material irregularity observed during the physical verification of cattle pans shall be reported by the Committee. 8. Per record, the Committee conducted physical check of the cattle colony. It surfaced that 03 plots/ pans were allotted to government employees, 04 plots were allotted to husband and wife (within same family) and 28 plots were found vacan t / not established or not utilized, therefore all these plots were recommended for cancellations. Allotments of 35 allottees for reasons of non -utilization of plots, husband – wife relationship and non – association with diary business, were cancelled which is set out below. a) The allotees whose allotments were cancelled for reason of failure to establish cattle pans is as follows:
S.No
Plot No Area of Plot (Sq.fts)
Name of Allottee 1. A-02 22275 Shoukat Ali (did not challenge cancellation) 2. A-03 22275 Irsar Ahmed (did not challenge cancellation) 3. A-06 22275 Israr Ahmed Bullo (did not challenge cancellation) 4. A-07 22275 Mohammad Arif (did not challenge cancellation) 5. B-13 7425 Rasool Bux Mahar (Petitioner in CPD 1053) 6. B-13/1 7425 Abid Hussain (did not challenge cancellation) 7. B-16 14850 Muhammad Rohan (did not challenge cancellation) 8. B-32/1 6750 Moula Bux Mahar (did not challenge cancellation) 9. B-33 14850 Hazoor Bux Mahar (Petitioner in CPD 1053) 10. D-49 9450 Bagh Ali (did not challenge cancellation) 11. B-52 14850 Mohammad Siddiqui (did not challenge cancellation) 12. B-57 16560 Kashif Ali (did not challenge cancellation) 13. B-61 14850 Manzoor Ahmed Mangrio (Petitioner in CPD 1148) 14. B-62 14850 Allahando Khan Mangrio (Petitioner in CPD 1148) 15. B-63 18876 Aashiq Ali Mahar (Petitioner in CPD 1053)
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 6 of 17
16. C-78 8400 Farhan Ali Chandio (Petitioner in CPD 1215) 17. C-86 9450 Gulzar Ahmed (Petitioner in CPD 1094) 18. C-107 10543 Sajjad Hussain (did not challenge cancellation) 19. C-112 9450 Ali Ibrahim (did not challenge cancellation) 20. C-137 9450 Syed Sohail Shah (did not challenge cancellation) 21. D-02 8908 Abdul Majeed Kalhoro (did not challenge cancellation) 22. D-04 20081 Syed Jan Muhammad (did not challenge cancellation) 23. D-06 14400 Waseem Ali (did not challenge cancellation) 24. D-08 13200 Muhammad Yousif (did not challenge cancellation) 25. D-26 10295 Ahmed Ali (did not challenge cancellation) 26. D-31 4690 Taj Mohammad (Petitioner in CPD 1110) 27. D-45 10000 Aashir Masood (Petitioner in CPD 1231) 28. D-46/1 2500 Mazhar Ali Shah (did not challenge cancellation)
b) The allotment of plots in favor of following allotees was cancelled as they were engaged in government service:
S. No Name of Cattle Farm Owners Plot No and Area Name of Department 1. Zameer Hussain Khokhar B-58 (14680 Sq ft) Finance Department 2. Ghulam Mustafa Mahar B-20 (14850 Sq.ft) Education & Literacy Department 3. Muhammad Hisham Mahar A-04 (22,275 Sq.Ft) Law Department, Government of Sindh
c) The female allottees, whose allotments were cancelled as their husbands were also allotted plots:
S. No Name of Cattle Farm Owners Petition No Plot No and Area Husbands Name Plot No & Area
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 7 of 17
1. Sameena Naz
CPD 1076
D-13 (8250 Sq ft) Abdul Kareem Abbasi B-24 (14850 Sq. fts) 2. Nida CPD 1347 B-39 (14850 sq.ft) Wajahat Ali Rajput B-26 (14520 Sq. ft) 3. Mst Sakeena
Did not challenge the cancellation D-43 (9625 Sq.Ft) Abdul Jabbar
C-135 (9450 Sq. ft) 4. Fozia Mahar
CPD 1076
C-125 (9450 sq.ft.) Badaruddin Mahar
C-124 (9450 sq. ft)
9. After cancellation of allotments of defaulter allottees, process of fresh allotment commenced through advertisement in newspapers inviting applications for allotment. The Allotment Committee received applications. Additionally, a site survey was conducted by the village staff, who submitted report to Assistant Commissioner Sukkur City, New Sukkur and the Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur. Based on the survey and verification, the Allotment Committee approved the allotment of 41 plots. The Committee after scrutiny of applications made fresh allotments in favor of the following persons:
S.# Name Plot allotted Area of plot (sq. ft) 1 Muhammad Salman Khan D-43 4000 2 Muhammad Aamir Keerio C-86 3000 3 Gulzar Ahmed Mahesar C-86/1 1450 4 Ali Hassan Cohan B-61 2225 5 Manzoor Ahmed Buriro B-61/1 2225 6 Haji Khan D-33/1-A 1715 7 Rashid Suleman D-33/1 1215 8 Zahid Ali B-61/2 5000 9 Lakhmir Bhattar D-33/1-B 2215 10 Muhammad Hassan Abro D-31 1200 11 Abid Hussain C-134 2500 12 Ghulam Nabi C-134/1 2500 13 Ubaidullah C-134/2 1500 14 Ghulam Rasool C-134/3 1800
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 8 of 17
15 Shakeel D-31/1 3490 16 Mor C-134/4 1150 17 Dilawar Ali C-64/1 4752 18 Naveed Ahmed B-62 14850 19 Riaz Ahmed B-39 14850 20 Abdul Wajid D-13 8250 21 Irfan Ali Khoso B-63/1 5000 22 Naheed Khan B-63/2 5000 23 Kamran Ali D-43/1 5650 24 Yasir Ali C-78 8400 25 Sahib Dino D-02 8908 26 Hayat D-26 10295 27 Attaullah B-20 7425 28 Rahmatullah B-20/1 7425 29 Tahir Ali B-57 16560 30 Saeed Ahmed B-39 14850 31 Khan Muhammad B-52 14850 32 Nisar Ahmed A-3 22275 33 Adeel A-06 22275 34 Zahid Ali B-13 7425 35 Ghulam Hyder Memon D-49 9450 36 Aqib Ali B-51 14850 37 Abu Bakar B-58 14680 38 Imam Bux Dahar C-107 10543 39 Abdul Qayoom Mako B-63 8876 40 Irfan Ali Shah D-06 14400 41 Syed Aamir Qadeer Shah C-112 9450
10. It further transpired from the record, that even on completion of fresh allotment process, the following plots were lying vacant for want of any application for allotment:
S. No Plot No and Category Area of Plot
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 9 of 17
1. A-02 22275 Sq. ft. 2. A-04 22275 Sq. ft. 3. A-05 22275 Sq. ft. 4. A-06 22275 Sq. ft. 5. B-11 14850 Sq. ft. 6. B-12 14850 Sq. ft. 7. B-14 14850 Sq. ft. 8. B-16 14850 Sq. ft. 9. B-53 14850 Sq. ft. 10. C-75 11322 Sq. ft. 11. C-125 9450 Sq. ft. 12. C-137 9450 Sq. ft. 13. D-45 10000 Sq. ft. 14. D-46/1 2500 Sq. ft.
11. The Petitioners have challenged the cancellation orders, citing mala fides on the part of Respondents, but not a single instance of bias or ill will has been quoted to elicit that the Respondents acted under extraneous considerations. The allotment of the each of the Petitioner was cancelled after issuance of show cause notice; however, the Petitioners have asserted that they were condemned unheard. For better understanding, the Petitioners’ cases are demonstrated in the tabular form to demonstrate the reas ons for the cancellation of allotment:
CPNo Name of Allottee Plot No Reasons for cancellation 1053
Hazoor Bux son of Rasool Bux Mahar B – 33 14850 sq ft Failure to construct & establish cattle pan 1053
Sikandar Ali son of Hazoor Bux Mahar B – 12 14850 sq ft Failure to construct & establish cattle pan 1053
Ashiq Ali son of Moula Bux Mahar B – 63 15000 sq ft Failure to construct & establish cattle pan 1053
Abdul Ghaffar son of Moula Bux Mahar B – 14 14850 sq ft Failure to construct & establish cattle pan 1053
Rasool Bux son of Moula Bux Mahar B – 13 7425 sq ft Failure to construct & establish cattle pan 1076 Fozia Mahar w/o Badaruddin C – 125 9450 sq ft Badaruddin Husband of Petitioner allottee of Plot No C – 124 1076 Samina Naz Abassi w/o Abdul Karim D – 13 8250 sq ft Abdul Karim, husband of Petitioner allottee of Plot No B -24 1094 Gulzar son of Eidan Mahr C -86 9450 sq ft Failure to construct & establish cattle pan
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 10 of 17
1110 Taj Mohammed Soomro son of Nazar Mohammed D – 31 4690 Failure to construct & establish cattle pan 1145 Sikandar Ali son of Sher Mohammed Mahar D – 33/1 Failure to construct & establish cattle pan, erected residential building 1148 Manzoor Ahmed son of Maqbool Ahmed Mangrio B – 61 14850 sq ft Failure to co nstruct & establish cattle pan 1148 Allahando Khan son of Maqbool Ahmed Mangrio B – 62 14850 sq ft Failure to construct & establish cattle pan 1215 Farhan Ali son of Mushtaq Ali Chandio C – 78 8400 sq ft Failure to construct & establish cattle pan 1231 Aashir Masood son of Masood Rasool Mahar D – 45 10000 sq ft Failure to construct & establish cattle pan 1347 Nida wife of Wajahat Ali B – 39 14850 sq ft Wajahat Ali, husband of the Petitioner allottee of plot No B – 26
12. We have examined cancellation orders issued by the Administrator, Cattle Colony Sukkur in CP No D 1053 of 2025, 1094/2025, 1110 of 2025, 1148of 2025, 1215 of 2025. The reason that weighed the Administrator Cattle Colony Sukkur to take action of cancellatio n of allotment was failure of allottees to establish cattle pans. Petitioners have annexed the photographs of cattle tethered in cattle colony, demonstrating that they were engaged in the diary business such version was not controverted by the Respondents through any rejoinder or other proof. The Learned Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 02.03.2021 passed in CPD No 99 of 2008 directed the Respondents to make Sukkur a cattle free city. Since sufficient number of cattle pans were still available i n the Cattle Colony, instead of penalizing the petitioners with cancellation of allotment, they would have been afforded an opportunity to establish the cattle pans. If the petitioners were left out from allotment of plots in cattle colony, definitely they would not shift the cattle from city areas, thus the dream of Sukkur a cattle free city would not materialize.
13. We have examined the case of Petitioners Fozia, Samina Naz in CPD 1076 of 2025 and Nida in CPD 1347 of 2025. They have been ousted from cat tle pan on the score that their spouses were allotted plots in cattle pans. The reason so assigned is not justified in any manner, as there is no allegation against the Petitioners that they were not engaged in diary business or they misused the provisional allotment already made in their favor. The Petitioners being women have right to do business independent of any relation. The
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 11 of 17
Petitioners enjoyed equal protection of law as that of men enshrined under article 4, 9, 18, 23 and 25 of the constitution. The Petitioners were entitled to retain the allotment of plots so long as they are engaged in diary business. The concept of dependence for grant of any benefit to a woman, which accrued as a matter of right was alien to law. The entitlement of the petitioners to do business cannot be denied on the ground of relationship that their husbands were also engaged in the same business. Right to do business is guaranteed under the constitution and could be exercised independently by a woman. Broadly speaking woman is an independent right holder, her rights were never linked to her marital status. The exclusion of a wife to do business when her husband was engaged in same business reflected a regressive, repressive and untenable conception, which is neither permissible under Islamic Law nor acceptable under the Laws of Land and under the constitutional command. Linking the civic and economic right of woman on her relationship to a man, had no backing of the law. The Constitution of the Country grants rights to the citizens under the concept of personhood, where women are equally protected and held equal in status to that of the men. The Constitution guarantees rights to individuals, not to marital units or prescribed social roles. Women are independent rights -bearing citi zens, their rights were not linked to their relation as wife. Financial independence is pivotal to the independence of women, it results into a free, fair, hygienic and amicable environments to deal the affair in family.
14. It is fundamental right of ev ery citizen to choose and conduct any profession, occupation, trade or business, but subject to the requisite qualifications, if any, prescribed by the law in that behalf and that further such profession etc. has not been declared unlawful or forbidden by any law as enshrined under Article 18 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan of 1973. Article 18 ibid is reproduced below for ease of reference:
18. Freedom of trade, business or profession.
Subject to such qualifications, if any, as may be prescribed by law, every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business: Provided that nothing in this Article shall prevent: (a) the regulation of any trade or profession by a licensing system; or
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 12 of 17
(b) the regulation of trade, commerce or industry in the interest of free competition therein; or (c) the carrying on, by the Federal Government or a Provincial Government, or by a corporation controlled by any such Government, of any trade, business, industry or service, to the exclusion, complete or partial, of other persons.
15. Bare reading of article 18 made it crystal clear, that the right to engage in lawful trade and business was not an unfettered right, the government c an regulate the business by placing restrictions through licensing system or otherwise.
16. The Government can put reasonable restrictions on diary business and regulate it in a way that falls in their domain. The regulations may include premises for cat tle, fixing of milk and meat rates and dairy products. It is crystal clear that the provisional allotment of the plots in the cattle colony was given to the Petitioners subject to certain terms and conditions, violation thereof, could have entailed penal c onsequences. When confronted that whether any terms of references or conditions were formulated before issuing the earlier allotment orders in favor of the Petitioners and other persons. The Administrator Cattle Colony conceded frankly that no such policy rules were framed when earlier allotment was made. It is strange that plots were allotted in the Cattle Colony without framing any rules or policy, enabling the authorized officer to take penal action in case of any violation by the allottee. In absence of any policy it cannot be safely held that non – utilization of cattle pans by the Petitioners would entail the penal consequences in shape of cancellation of the allotment order.
17. It cannot be said that the action taken by the Respondents for cancellation of the plots of the Petitioners was illegal in toto. They were the Petitioners who did not comply with the earlier allotment orders and failed to establish cattle pans. Looking to the peculiar circumstances of the case that sufficient number of plots were lying vacant, therefore instead of denial, Petitioners should have been allowed another opportunity to establish the cattle pans within a specific period, on failure the allotmen ts would have stood cancelled.
C.P No. D-1053 of 2025 & others Page 13 of 17
18. In case of Administrator, Market Comm ittee, Kasur and 3 others v. Muhammad Sharif (1994 SCMR 1048), Honorable Supreme Court has held as follows: “In the present proceedings the precise question for determination is whether the respondents can challenge the authority of the Government to establish a new market under the Ordinance or the respondents may use the old market for the purpose of purchase a nd sale of their goods. The learned counsel emphatically argued that the respondents cannot be denied their constitutional right to transact business in old market as it offends their vested Fundamental Right No. 18 incorporated in the Constitution. The re spondents, according to their own statement, are doing business in the old market, and their main grievance is that they should not be compelled to do their business in the new market. F.R. No. 18 permits a citizen to conduct any lawful trade and business but the Government may regulate the trade by a licensing system. Licensing system is itself a restraint on the trade, but the Constitution empowers the Government to impose reasonable restrictions. Reasonable restrictions authorised by the Constitution do not negate the Constitutional rights of a citizen to do business unhindered without any condition. A reasonable classification is always considered to be within the framework of the fundamental right. Law may regulate the mode of carrying on business in a market place. There is no bar of exercise the lawful trade but the interest of residents of the city should be guarded as a public policy. A right to do business does not guarantee a trader an uncontrolled privilege. The law has been…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.