2016 PLP 1134 (SCMR)

MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.

Railway Employees Housing Society chalked out a master plan for the development of a housing scheme, which was got approved from the respondent/Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad. The appellant being a member of the said society was allotted a plot. According to the appellant, after having sought approval of construction plan from the society, he raised construction of a house, but this has been unauthorizedly and illegally demolished by the Local Government without giving any notice, which gave cause of action to the appellant to seek damages for such an illegal action. The Municipal Corporation contested the matter and after trial the learned Civil Judge dismissed the suit. However, on appeal of the appellant such decree was set aside and the suit was decreed. While invoking the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court the respondent was able to have the appellate decree set aside and that of the learned Trial Court restored.

2. Learned counsel for the appellant states that because the master plan of the society was approved by the respondent, therefore the construction plan could, always be approved by the society as per its bye-laws. The Vice President of the Society has appeared as a witness on behalf of the appellant, who in unequivocal terms has stated that the site plan was duly approved. Obviously, in such a situation, the demolition of the construction raised by the appellant lawfully was an act giving rise to cause of seeking damages particularly when such demolition was made without issuing any notice to the appellant and enabling him to explain his position which (action) is without jurisdiction; besides it is a discriminatory act that no other construction was demolished except that of the appellant. We repeatedly questioned the learned counsel for the appellant to show us that once the master plan has been approved by the Local Government it denuded of the power which absolutely vests in it to sanction plan and the power is converted to the society to approve plan. However, it is argued that being Vice President of the Society he had the authority and it may be assumed as sanction. The authority always emerges out of law and not from the testimony of an interested party. As regards the Bye Laws, it may be the internal regulations for the purposes of relationship inter se between members of the society while it was the absolute authority of the Municipal Corporation to pass construction plans which ultimately had not been so got sanctioned by the appellant from the Municipal Corporation, resultantly the construction of the appellant was undoubtedly illegal and unauthorized and has rightly been demolished by the respondent. The argument that no notice was served upon the appellant before taking any action, suffice to say that Sub-Inspector of the Municipal Corporation, DW-1, has categorically said that so many notices were issued to the appellant, which were received by his son, and there is no rebuttal to this effect. As far as the argument that respondent has not demolished any other construction except that of the appellant it may be mentioned that this has not been the case of the appellant neither in the pleadings nor there is any strong evidence, rather to the contrary stance set out in the evidence is that other unauthorized constructions which were made without approval of the respondent had also been demolished, thus the case of mala fide is not established. There is no merit in this case. Accordingly dismissed. MWA/B-1/SC Appeal dismissed.