1998 PLP 1387 (CLC)

Haider Iqbal Wahniwal for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 10th September, 1996. WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑‑This order would be read in continuation of the earlier orders in the petition and, more particularly, the orders, dated 15‑4‑1996 and 10‑9‑1996. In spite of the fact that Mrs. Zahida Naqvi for respondent‑KBCA on 15‑4‑1996, stated that she would be filing comments, none seem to have been filed. The petition in the absence of the learned counsel for the respondents was taken up and disposed of on 10‑9‑1996, for reasons which follow: The petitioner is the owner of building situated on Plot No.OT‑5/3, Mithadar, Karachi and Respondent No.2 dismantled the adjoining property, OT‑5/4, Mithadar, Karachi, allegedly, causing damage to the petitioner's building. This being accomplished, the respondent No.2, according to averments in the petition, to which no counter‑affidavit has been filed, started raising construction on the plot last mentioned. He undertook the construction work on such plot, allegedly, without obtaining approval/permission and without an approved plan. The K.B.C.A., in spite of notices, seems to have dilly‑dallied in the matter with the result that the respondent No.2 was able to raise a ground plus six storeys structure allegedly impairing the petitioner's right on enjoying his property, blocking the petitioner's right of light and air. The structure of the respondent No.2 has been described in the petition as a "concrete bomb". Meanwhile, the petitioner approached this Court and on 3‑4‑1996 further construction was ordered to be stopped. Two consecutive inspections were ordered through the Nazir and it would seem that the structure, in effect, was given a touch of finality, inasmuch as portions thereof were allocated to various persons. No approved or completion plan has been brought on record. As a result, the allegations remaining uncontroverted, an unauthorised building seems to be standing on the site posing serious hazards to life and property. In the circumstances and for reasons to be recorded, we, through a short order, allowed the petition. It will now be for the K.B.C.A. to proceed with the matter upon issuance of notices to all the parties. The structure being unauthorised would be dealt with in accordance with law. Notices would be issued by the K.B.C.A. to all concerned, the petitioner, the respondent No.2 and the occupants such as they may be. If the structure is unauthorised, necessary action at the level of the K.B.C.A. would be taken through a speaking order. Under all circumstances, it would be ensured that no element of danger is countenanced. Besides, the rights of the petitioner and other neighbours of the property would be fully secured. Occupancies created by the respondent No.2 should pose no difficulty because rights created in an illegal building upon due process, must stand or fall with the building itself. The decision of the KBCA would be communicated to this Court in writing and every effort would be made to effect early disposal. A.A./S‑134/K Order accordingly.