2000 PLP 1164 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ISLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2000 PLP 1164 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sayed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ISLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 1164 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 1164 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sayed Najam‑ul‑Hassan Kazmi, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 1164 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ISLAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- N.A. Butt for Petitioner.
- Mian Muzaffar Hussain for Respondents Nos. l and 2.
- Date of hearing; 4th November, 1999.
Headnotes / Summary
Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 18 & 19‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Construction over a plot‑‑‑Petitioner purchased plot through registered sale=deed and after getting plan sanctioned from Metropolitan Corporation started construction over that plot‑‑‑City Development Authority started interference in said .construction on the ground that it had control over area in which plot was situated‑‑‑Metropolitan Corporation which sanctioned the plan had stated that plan for construction was sanctioned as plot in question fell in the area controlled by the Corporation‑‑‑Development Authority had failed to produce any material on record to show that the . Authority had any control over area‑ concerned or that the Authority had any right to interfere in the construction within area controlled by Corporation‑‑ Petitioner having raised construction over plot by getting sanction for construction from concerned Corporation, he could not be subjected to any illegal action of Development Authority‑‑‑In absence of any record showing plot falling in controlled area of Development Authority, act of Authority could not be approved‑‑‑Authority was restrained to make any illegal interference in the construction.
Judgment & Decree
This order will dispose of Writ Petition No.25497 of 1998.
2. Facts stated in the petition are that the petitioner purchased a plot measuring 3 Marla, 56 sq.ft. situated in Shamas Street, National Park Rajgarh, Lahore from the respondents Nos.4 and 5 through registered sale -deed, dated 30th of October, 1997, the possession was delivered to the petitioner, petitioner applied for necessary sanction of plan to Metropolitan Corporation, the plan was duly sanctioned by the said authority and that at the time when the construction started, the respondent No.2 started interference without any basis.
3. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner lawfully purchased the property, raised construction by obtaining necessary sanction from the authority which had the control over the area and L.D.A. has nothing to do with the construction or the ownership of the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the Metropolitan Corporation submitted that the plan was sanctioned as the property at that time fall in controlled area of the Corporation.
5. Apparently, no material has been placed on record to show that L.D.A. has any control over the area or has any authority to interfere in the Constitution, within the area controlled by the Metropolitan Corporation. The petitioner having raised construction by getting sanction of plan from L.M.C., which still supports the petitioner, cannot be subjected to any illegal action of L.D.A., unless, L.D.A., on proper material, could justify interference. In the absence of any ‑record showing the property falls in controlled area of L.D.A., the impugned acts cannot be approved.
6. Resultantly, this petition is allowed, and it is directed that the respondents Nos.1 and 2 shall not make any illegal interference in the, construction of the petitioner. However, if at any stage the area is found to 1 have been included in controlled area of L. D.A., respondents can initiate fresh action, permissible in law, after notice to and hearing of the petitioner. H.B.T./M‑118/L Petition allowed.