2008 PLP 721 (CLC)
BASHIRUDDIN QURESHI — Appellant Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY through Chief Controller of Buildings and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 721 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | BASHIRUDDIN QURESHI — Appellant Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY through Chief Controller of Buildings and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 721 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 721 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 721 (CLC) (BASHIRUDDIN QURESHI — Appellant Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY through Chief Controller of Buildings and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Saifuddin for Respondent No.3.
- Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that he has already deposited the Nazir's fee. He has also placed a copy of receipt, dated 20-1-2007 evidencing the payment of Nazir's fee, which is taken on record. It appears that in compliance of this Court's order, dated 29-9-2006 a joint inspection was carried out by the Nazir in presence of the appellant along with his counsel and the representatives of K.B.C.A. and P.E.C.H.S. After carrying out such exercise, it has come on record that the encroachment has been made by the appellant. Though we have serious reservation as 'to the excessive area reserved for park has been allotted to the appellant. K.B.C.A. and other concerned authorities are directed not to regularize the area, which was originally part of any amenity park or other amenity purposes. However, looking to the undertaking given by the appellant, K.B.C.A. is directed to ensure that incase, any area in excessive of 468 square yards is found in possession of the appellant, same shall be restored without any further delay. Mr. Saifuddin, learned counsel undertakes on behalf of P.E.C.H.S. that such direction of this Court will be communicated to the respondent No.3 for removal of the entire encroachment and illegal/unauthorized construction made beyond the plot limits as such excess area was originally earmarked for the amenity purposes. Compliance report to be submitted within two weeks.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 3
Record showed that encroachment had been made by the appellant
Authorities were directed not to regularize the area, which was originally part of any amenity park or other amenity purposes, however, looking to the undertaking given by appellant, Authorities were directed to ensure that in case any area in excess was found in possession of the appellant, same would be restored without any further delay
Counsel for Authorities had undertaken that such direction of the High Court would be communicated to the Authorities for removal of the entire encroachment and illegal/unauthorized construction made beyond the plot limits
Compliance report was directed to be submitted within two weeks.
Judgment & Decree
Mr. Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing for petitioner submits that he has already deposited the Nazir's fee. He has also placed a copy of receipt, dated 20-1-2007 evidencing the payment of Nazir's fee, which is taken on record. It appears that in compliance of this Court's order, dated 29-9-2006 a joint inspection was carried out by the Nazir in presence of the appellant along with his counsel and the representatives of K.B.C.A. and P.E.C.H.S. After carrying out such exercise, it has come on record that the encroachment has been made by the appellant. Though we have serious reservation as 'to the excessive area reserved for park has been allotted to the appellant. K.B.C.A. and other concerned authorities are directed not to regularize the area, which was originally part of any amenity park or other amenity purposes. However, looking to the undertaking given by the appellant, K.B.C.A. is directed to ensure that incase, any area in excessive of 468 square yards is found in possession of the appellant, same shall be restored without any further delay. Mr. Saifuddin, learned counsel undertakes on behalf of P.E.C.H.S. that such direction of this Court will be communicated to the respondent No.3 for removal of the entire encroachment and illegal/unauthorized construction made beyond the plot limits as such excess area was originally earmarked for the amenity purposes. Compliance report to be submitted within two weeks. H.B.T./B-31/K Order accordingly.