The Sindh High Court (SHC) has directed the competent authority of antiquities and archaeology directorate general to examine and finalise the status of decades-old structure known as ‘Alavi Building’ about its proposed/protected heritage status under the provincial cultural heritage preservation law.
Disposing of a petition against the demolition of the protected Alavi Building situated at Serai quarters near II Chundrigar Road, a division bench of the SHC headed by Justice Adnanul Karim Memon directed the authority to complete the exercise within two months after providing an opportunity of hearing to all the parties concerned.
The high court ordered that till the final decision by the competent authority regarding the status of the protected building, the SBCA shall not demolish, alter or create any third-party interest in the existing structure situated on the Plot No SR-7/26.
The petitioner, Hari Das, had filed a petition seeking injunction against the demolition process being carried out at Alavi Building and for declaring the building as a protected heritage with all inclusive privileges.
He said that the building constructed with solid stone and forming part of the historic cluster of pre-partition architecture in the Old City area, was duly listed as a heritage property and held significant cultural, social and architectural value.
He submitted that he had lawful and continuous possession of the premises for over four decades, having acquired occupancy rights through the previous leasee upon payment of pagri and ground rent.
He said that the private respondents, claiming rights through a subsequent sublease, had allegedly resorted to unlawful tactics to dispossess the occupants and demolish the structure, including blocking access, dismantling essential facilities, and carrying out demolition activities without lawful authority.
The SBCA’s counsel submitted that the demolition permission was lawfully granted on May 31, 2019, after completion of all legal and technical formalities and upon verification from the culture, tourism and antiquities department that the subject plots were “not included” in the list of protected heritage properties under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994.
The authority’s counsel said that although the premises were temporarily sealed in September 2024, the same were subsequently de-sealed after the owners produced valid demolition permission and official verification letters.
The SBCA maintained that the Plot No SR-7/27 had already been demolished lawfully, whereas the Plot No SR-7/26, where the petitioner was situated, remained intact.
It was argued that the controversy essentially involved disputed questions of fact and private rights between the parties, which could not appropriately be adjudicated in constitutional jurisdiction.
The high court was informed that the plots SR-7/26 and SR-7/27 were separate properties, and demolition activity has only been carried out on Plot No. SR-7/27.
A counsel for the antiquities & archaeology directorate general submitted that upon physical inspection, it was observed that the actual Alavi Building structure existed on Plot No SR-7/26 and appeared to qualify for declaration as protected heritage under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994, whereas Plot No. SR-7/27 has already been demolished and was neither notified nor recommended as heritage property.
It was further submitted that the original heritage notification issued in 1995 did not specify plot numbers, and subsequent re-survey notifications issued in 2011 were set aside by the high court in earlier proceedings, after which fresh surveys were directed.
The department stated that the matter regarding the declaration of Plot No SR-7/26 as protected heritage was under process. The high court observed that the controversy in the instant petition revolved around two distinct plots bearing Nos SR-7/26 and SR-7/27 situated at Serai Quarters, Karachi; therefore, the status and legality concerning each plot were required to be examined independently in the light of the material placed before the court.
The high court observed that antiquities & archaeology directorate general, after physical inspection, had specifically reported that the actual Alavi Building structure on Plot No SR-7/26 qualified to be declared as protected heritage under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994.
The bench noted that the heritage department had also stated that the matter for the declaration of the said structure as protected heritage was presently under process before the competent department.
The SHC observed that the petitioner was in physical occupation of Office No 46 situated on Plot No. SR-7/26 for a considerable length of time, and his possession had not been disputed. Even otherwise, an occupant in settled possession could not be dispossessed except in accordance with law.
The high court observed that mere pendency of a proposal or process for declaration of heritage status did not automatically extinguish proprietary rights of the owner.
The SHC, however, observed that once the competent heritage department itself had reported that Plot No SR-7/26 qualified for consideration as a protected heritage structure; the matter assumed public importance over preservation of cultural and historical assets of the province.
The bench observed that in such circumstances, it became the duty of the authorities concerned to ensure that no irreversible prejudice was caused to the structure before a final determination was made by the competent forum under the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994.
The SHC observed that since Plot No SR-7/27 already stood demolished pursuant to permission granted by the SBCA, and the same was not presently declared or recommended as protected heritage; no restraint order was warranted about the said plot.
The high court observed that the court order shall not prejudice the rights of the petitioner or any other aggrieved person to seek appropriate remedy before the competent civil court/forum concerning tenancy, possession, compensation or any other independent claim permissible under the law. However, the possession of the subject property shall remain with the owners forthwith.
The SHC ordered that the parties shall cooperate with the concerned authorities during inspection/survey proceedings, and the competent department shall pass a speaking order independently without being influenced by any observation made herein, which were tentative in nature.
