SCMR 2002

2002 PLP 727 (SCMR)

Messrs CHAPAL BUILDERS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others‑‑‑Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.686‑K of 1998, decided on 2th April., 1999.
Honorable Judges
Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Actg. C.J. and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2002 PLP 727 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Actg. C.J. and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ
Parties Messrs CHAPAL BUILDERS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others‑‑‑Respondents
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 727 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 727 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saiduzzaman Siddiqui, Actg. C.J. and Wajihuddin Ahmed, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 727 (SCMR) (Messrs CHAPAL BUILDERS‑‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Representation

  • Abrar Hasan and Akhlaq. Ahmed Siddiqui, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
  • Munir‑ur‑Rehman, A.A.‑G. on Notice to A.‑G., Sindh for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1999.

Headnotes / Summary

(a) Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 7(1)(b)(d) & 9‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑ Petitioner contended that levy of octroi in disputed area was unlawful and even mala tide as the upgradation of Union Council to Town‑Committee had been designed to circumvent the effect of Baba Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, Karachi (PLD 1989 Karachi 136) as upheld in Union Council v. Baba Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (1993 SCMR'596); the areas of upgraded entity were neither compact nor contiguous; and that Government had neither waived any of such characteristics nor recorded reasons therefore‑‑‑Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine such contentions. Baba Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, Karachi PLD 1989 Kar. 136 and Union Council v. Baba Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. 1993 SCMR 596 ref. (b) Sindh Local Government Ordinance (XII of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.7(1)(b)(d)‑‑‑Disputed area was already a part of the urban area of Karachi Development Authority and, therefore, of the City of Karachi‑‑‑Such area could not be relegated to the status of a town in contravention of S.7 (1)(b) & (d) of the Sindh Local Government. Ordinance, 1979.

Judgment & Decree

Date of hearing: 2nd April, 1999. WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J‑‑‑The High Court, through the impugned order, has dismissed a number of Constitutional Petitions where, inter alia, the imposition and realization of octroi firstly, by the Union Council. Gujro in District Karachi‑East and subsequently by its successor viz. Town Committee, Gujro was questioned. One such 'petition, C.P. No.D‑2722 of 1993, was filed by the present petitioner. It is contended before us that the levy of octroi in the disputed area is unlawful and even mala fide as the upgradation of the Union Council, Gujro to Town Committee Gujro has been designed to circumvent the effect of Baba Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, Karachi (PLD 1989 Karachi 136) as upheld in Union Council v. Baba Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. (1993 SCMR 596). These precedents opined that the relevant schemes of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) were deemed to be Urban areas and because the Union Council, Gujro could only be constituted in respect of a Rural area such was not competent to levy octroi in respect of the lands comprised in the Housing Societies and Schemes of the KDA. Our attention has also been drawn to section 7 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, which is relevant to declaration of a town as seems to have been occasioned in the instant case. Such section is as below:‑‑ "7. (1) Any area declared as union, town, municipality or city shall, as far as possible be compact, and contiguous with territorial unity. (2) The population of local area shall in the case of‑‑‑ (a) a union be such as may be specified by Government; (b) a town be between five thousand to twenty‑five thousand; (c) a municipality be between twenty‑five thousand to five lacs; (d) a city be above five lacs. (3) Government may, for reasons to be recorded, waive any of the aforesaid characteristics while delimiting a local area." A perusal of the reproduced section would show that as far as possible a town shall be compact and contiguous with territorial unity. Besides, population thereof would be between five thousand to twenty‑five thousand. It is urged that the areas of the upgraded entity are neither compact nor contiguous and even the quantum of the population exceeds twenty‑five thousand. The Government also has not been shown either to have waived any of such characteristics or recorded reasons therefore. Significantly, the disputed area, we note, was already a part of the Urban area of KDA and, therefore, of the city of Karachi and such perhaps could not be relegated to the status of a town in contravention of section 7 (1) (b) and (d) of the 1979 statute. The questions, raised as above, require examination. The petition is accordingly, is allowed and leave to appeal is granted. S.A.K./C‑47/SC Leave granted.