Legal Principle & Question Decided

Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Sindh High Court, officially reported as 2025 SHC 1163. In this matter between Const. P. 4311/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi - Ikram Uddin (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.

Full Judgment Text & Judicial Ruling

COURT: Sindh High Court CASE NO: Const. P. 4311/2025 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi CITATION: 2026 SHC KHI 1163 PARTIES: Ikram Uddin (Petitioner) ORDER DATE: 19-MAY-26 BENCH: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber) A.F.R: Yes ------------------------------------------------------------ ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI C.P. No.D-4311 of 2025 (Ikramuddin versus Government of Sindh & others) _________________________________________________________________ Date Order with signature of Judge _________________________________________________________________ Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon Mr. Justice Muhammad Hasan (Akber)

Date of hearing and order:- 19.05.2026

Mr. Israr Ahmed Abro, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sajjad Abbasi, advocate for the respondent. Mr. Ghulam Akbar Lashari, advocate for SBCA. Syed Ali Ahmed Zaidi, Addl. A.G Sindh. SI Nazim, PS PIB Colony Karachi. ------------------------- O R D E R

Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, J. – The petition relates to alleged illegal construction at House No. D -13/D, Plot No. 14, PIB Colony, Karachi. Earlier, the matter was disposed of vide order dated 23.09.2025, whereby the petitioner was directed to avail the remedy through the Smart Complaint Redressal Mechanism (SCRM) of the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA). Subsequently, a contempt application was also disposed of based on a report of SBCA confirming violations of permissible limits, including FAR, and issuance of an ejectment notice under the relevant law, with directions for compliance through the local administration. Learned counsel for the respondent has submitted that he was not heard at the time of the earlier disposal and contends that the property in question is inherited, alleging misrepresentation of facts in obta ining the earlier order. He submitted that in the interest of justice, SBCA may be directed to provide the respondent with a meaningful opportunity of hearing and to pass a speaking order within two months. In view of the submissions made by learned coun sel for the respondent, who has specifically contended that no proper opportunity of hearing was afforded at the time of earlier disposal, and further asserts that the property in question is inherited in nature and that the earlier order was obtained on a lleged misrepresentation of facts, this Court is of the considered view that the matter requires reconsideration by the competent authority within the framework of law. Since the allegations raised by the respondent pertain to factual determination of ownership status as well as compliance with building regulations, which cannot be effectively adjudicated without affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties, principles of due process and fair trial necessitate that the matter be examined afresh by the regulatory authority. Accordingly, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the head of the SBCA is directed to afford the respondent a meaningful opportunity of

hearing, consider all relevant material, and pass a reasoned and s peaking order strictly in accordance with law within a period of two months. The authority shall also ensure that its decision is based on a proper evaluation of factual and legal aspects, including the nature of ownership and the applicability of building regulations. The listed review application is, therefore, disposed of in the above terms. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the Director General, SBCA, for compliance, and a report shall be submitted to this Court through MIT-II. JUDGE

JUDGE Shahzad Soomro

Related Legal Research & Directories

• Browse all judgments from Sindh High Court
• Search Pakistani statutes: Constitution of Pakistan 1973, PPC, CrPC, CPC & Family Laws
• Analyze this case with Al Wakeelo AI Legal Assistant