HYDERABAD: Senior Civil Judge-III of Hyderabad Wazeer Ali Bohio has set aside his own judgement and decree, passed on Feb 4, in suit relating to a plot falling within the archaeological site Pucca Qila. He has directed plaintiff to implead in the suit the Hyderabad deputy commissioner, the City assistant commissioner and mukhtiarkar, director of settlement survey and assistant director of archaeology as defendants in suit.

In his May 20 directive, the judge ordered restoration of the suit filed by Shaikh Mohammad Imran through his attorney Shaikh Qasim.

The judge directed the plaintiff to file amended title of his suit.

Deputy District Attorney (DDA) Mazhar Abro submitted in court that the plaintiff had obtained the Feb 4 judgement and decree through fraud, misrepresentation and concealment of facts and without joining the applicant (assistant director of archaeology) as party. The plaintiff started construction on the plot while NOC/approval of the building plan was suspended by the department concerned and this fact was concealed by the plaintiff.

The DDA filed statement along with photocopy of the Jan 7, 2025 letter (issued in response to culture official’s correspondence seeking stoppage of construction on premises falling in prohibited area of the fort’s fortification wall) under which SBCA directed plaintiff to stop construction work on the plot. But this letter was not brought on record by the SBCA and reports were filed in favour of plaintiff. Therefore, on the basis of SBCA’s reply, the suit was decreed.

The DDA prayed to court that the judgement and decree may be set aside and the assistant director of archaeology may be added as party along with City AC and mukhtiarkar.

Plaintiff’s counsel Dilip Kumar submitted in court that his client had filed the suit on the basis of sale deed in respect of property and obtained approval of building plan from SBCA on Aug 9, 2024. He stated that thereafter, he started construction but when hindrances were created in the construction work, he filed the suit.

The court noted that the “counsel for plaintiff failed to explain any plausible reason in respect of suspension of proposed building plan by SBCA and has argued that plaintiff is not aware of any such suspension of building plan”.

SBCA’s counsel, on the other hand, filed report but failed to argue on the point that building plan has been suspended by SBCA and has not denied genuineness of Jan 7, 2025 letter whereby plaintiff was directed to stop construction.

The court also noted that the suit was filed on Jan 8 while letter in respect of stoppage of work was issued on Jan 7 and “plaintiff deliberately concealed letter after service of summons. SBCA filed reply in favour of plaintiff, consequently suit was decreed. Officials of SBCA failed to produce Jan 7 letter. DDA brought said letter on record which is not denied by plaintiff and SBCA”.

DDA brought some other documents on record in respect of archaeological sites.

“Since plaintiff has failed to implead revenue department, archaeology department as party in this suit they shall be necessary party to produce relevant record and to file their proper reply in respect of suit property and dispute,” the court said.

Published in Dawn, May 23rd, 2025