2008 PLP 2663 (YLR)
ABDUL MAJEED REHMANI — Petitioner Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 2663 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Amir Hani Muslim and Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJEED REHMANI — Petitioner Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 2663 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 2663 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Amir Hani Muslim and Mrs. Yasmin Abbasey, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 2663 (YLR) (ABDUL MAJEED REHMANI — Petitioner Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Construction of building---Plan of the property in question which had been impugned, had been regularized---Chief Controller of Buildings stated that the regularization was within the ambit of plot--Counsel for the petitioner, on the other hand, had stated that during the construction the wall and the floor of the petitioner's residence were damaged---Since the counsel of the parties were amicably settling the matter, counsel for respondents was directed to deposit a sum of Rs.150,000 with the Nazir of the Court which amount would be paid to the petitioner as compensation for the alleged damage of the floor and the wall---Respondents would continue with the construction strictly in accordance with the approved/revised plan---Respondents, however, would not be entitled to dispose of the property in units and instead would be entitled to dispose of the property as a whole---Interest of the petitioner was thus secured and even otherwise the construction was raised within the parameters of revised plan---Constitutional petition having achieved the purpose, same was disposed of accordingly---Amount would be deposited by the respondents with the Nazir of the Court within the stipulated period and petitioner would be entitled for withdrawal of the same.
- Ms. Razia Danish for Petitioner.
- Khawaja Shams-ul-Islam for Respondents Nos.2 to 5.
- Since the counsel are amicably settling the matter, therefore, we direct the counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5 to deposit a sum of Rs.150,000 (Rupees one hundred fifty thousand only) with the Nazir of this Court, which amount shall be paid to the petitioner as compensation for the alleged damage of the floor and the wall. The respondents Nos.2 to 5 shall continue with the construction strictly in accordance with the approved/revised plan. It is made clear that respondents Nos.2 to 5 would not be entitled to dispose of the property in units and instead would be entitled to dispose of the property as a whole. The respondents Nos.2 to 5 claims that they are real brothers and they would be occupying these premises for their personal use and do not have the intention to dispose of them as unit.
Headnotes / Summary
Shahid Jamaluddin Ahmed for K.B.C.A.
Judgment & Decree
We have examined the contents of the reply of the show-cause notice non-appearance of the Chief Controller of Building was not intentional. We discharge the show-cause notice. We have informed that the plan of the property in question, which has been impugned in these proceedings have been regularized. The Chief Controller of Buildings stated that the regularization was within the ambit of plot. The counsel for the petitioner on the other hand states that during the construction the wall and the floor of the petitioner's residence were damaged. Since the counsel are amicably settling the matter, therefore, we direct the counsel for respondents Nos.2 to 5 to deposit a sum of Rs.150,000 (Rupees one hundred fifty thousand only) with the Nazir of this Court, which amount shall be paid to the petitioner as compensation for the alleged damage of the floor and the wall. The respondents Nos.2 to 5 shall continue with the construction strictly in accordance with the approved/revised plan. It is made clear that respondents Nos.2 to 5 would not be entitled to dispose of the property in units and instead would be entitled to dispose of the property as a whole. The respondents Nos.2 to 5 claims that they are real brothers and they would be occupying these premises for their personal use and do not have the intention to dispose of them as unit. Since we have already compensated the petitioner for the alleged damage and same time respondents Nos.2 to 5 had given the statement through the counsel that the property as and when sold would be disposed of as a whole and not unit-wise. The interest of the petitioner is secured and even otherwise the construction is raised within the parameter of revised plan. We feel that this petition has achieved the purpose and is accordingly disposed of in the above terms with the listed application. The amount shall be deposited by the respondents Nos.2 to 5 with the Nazir of this Court within two weeks from today and the petitioner would be entitled for withdrawal of the same amount notice by approaching the Nazir, who shall disburse the amount so deposited by the respondents Nos.2 to 5 to the petitioner on proper verification. H.B.T./A-97/K??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.