2008 PLP 793 (MLD)
SIBTE-MUJTABA KAZMI — Petitioner Versus CANTONMENT BOARD through Cantonment Executive Officer and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 793 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | SIBTE-MUJTABA KAZMI — Petitioner Versus CANTONMENT BOARD through Cantonment Executive Officer and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Cantonments Act (XI of 1924) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 793 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Cantonments Act (XI of 1924) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 793 (MLD)?
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 793 (MLD) (SIBTE-MUJTABA KAZMI — Petitioner Versus CANTONMENT BOARD through Cantonment Executive Officer and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Raja Sikandar Khan Yasir for Petitioner.
- Ashraf Ali Butt for Respondent No.1
- Manzoor Ahmad for Respondent No.2
- Shoaib Ali Khan for Respondent No.3.
- S.M. Alam for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 184, 185 & 186
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Regularization of illegal construction--Statement had been filed on behalf of respondent to the effect that illegal construction had been regularized and composition fee had also been paid
Authorities had contended that violation of the compulsory open space requirement and raising additional floors in excess of the original approved plan could not be regularized by Authority
Sections 184 & 185 of Cantonments Act, 1924 had conferred wide powers upon the Cantonment Board and other authorities to condone any illegality in the construction and accepting composition fee instead
Sanctions for constructions of buildings were to be obtained under Chapter XI of the Cantonments Act, 1924 and the building bye-laws made under S.186 of said Act could not override statutory provisions.
Judgment & Decree
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.
A statement has been filed on behalf of respondent No.4 to the effect that the illegal construction has been regularized by the respondent No.4 and composition free has been paid. Therefore, the petition has become infructuous. Mr. Yasir proceeded to argue that the violation of the compulsory open space requirement and raising additional floors in excess of the original approved plan could not be accorded by the respondent No.1. In this context he relied upon the bye-laws XV of the Bye-Laws regulating building in the then Drig Road Cantonment published by the Cantonment Board and approved by the Federal Government in the Gazette, dated April 30, 1995. Indeed the aforesaid bye-laws do provide for a minimum compulsory open space in plots measuring about 500 sq. yards and also lay down the prescribed height of the building. Nothing was shown in the said bye-laws enabling the concerned authorities to deviate from the said requirements. Nevertheless, learned counsel for the respondent referred to sections 184 and 185 of the Cantonments Act which conferred wide powers upon the Board and other authorities to condone any illegality in the construction and accept composition fee instead. It may also be added that sanctions for construction of buildings are to be obtained under Chapter XI of the Cantonments Act and the building bye-law made under section 186 cannot override statutory force. We, therefore, find no merits in the petition and dismiss the same.
2. In view of the Nazir's report this application is dismissed. H.B.T./S-15/K???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.