2025 PLP 1736 (MLD)

Asim Hafeez, J.

Grievance raised is primarily directed against the construction of police station at Plot No.224, Block-Q, Model Town Extension__having measurement of 3-K 06-M. Underlying reasons for grievance are twofold, firstly, that the approval extended was in violation of the Land Use Rules, 2014 (Rules, 2014), and, secondly, that such establishment could not be constructed in dominantly residential area.

2. Essential facts are that request for establishment of police station was received and suit land was found suitable for the purpose. The site identified for police station was designated as 'public building site' in the Master plan of the Model Town Extension__and such designation existed since 1985. Over the years, a mosque was constructed, bordering the boundary of the police station site, and a private school were constructed and are operational. Houses of the petitioners are not located opposite the police station site but in the vicinity. Aggrieved of the approval, petitioners filed constitutional petition bearing W.P No.29653/2016, which was disposed of on 23.06.2019 with direction to decide the grievance through speaking order. After hearing the petitioners their representation was rejected vide order of 15.05.2017. Notably, petitioners filed another petition bearing W.P No.45834/2017, which was dismissed on 14.09.2020, on the premise that order of 15.05.2017 was not assailed. ICA No.48352/2020 met same fate and petitioners approached Hon'ble Supreme Court through CPLA No.1996-L/2020, but during pendency of said petition for leave to appeal instant petition is filed__and as alleged CPLA was withdrawn. Petition is contested in this backdrop.

3. Precise submission is that construction of police station is contrary to the Rules, 2014, whereby provisioning of Police Station was neither a permitted nor permissible activity in residential area. Adds that construction of police station is permitted within land use reserved for commercial area(s) and not otherwise. Adds that Police Station constructed will be source of environmental pollution.

4. Conversely, learned counsel appearing for LDA emphasized that no change qua the land use was allowed, contrary to the mandate of approved Master Plan of 1985, upon allowing construction of police station, which site, since day one, was designated as public building site. Adds that approval was granted in 2016 and now building is complete and will be operational soon. On maintainability of the petition, it is it is/argued that representation was dismissed in May 2017 and petitioner waited for six years to throw the challenge again, which attracts laches. Adds that remedy of appeal was provided under Rule 27 of the Rules, 2014 and petitioner had not preferred appeal but making collateral attack through instant petition, which could not be allowed. Copy of Master plan was placed on record. Determination of the questions raised.

5. Delayed response against order of 15.05.2017 is conspicuous and no plausible explanation was extended to displace factum of knowledge thereof__petitioners had knowledge of factum of order of 15.05.2017 upon dismissal of petition on 14.09.2020, wherein reference was made to the order of 15.05.2017, and instead of invoking remedy under the Rules, 2014, petitioner unsuccessfully challenged order before division bench of this court and thereafter approached Hon'ble Supreme Court and lately withdrew said petition in wake of pendency of instant petition. Primary allegation was that allowing of use of land for construction of police station violates mandate of the Rules, 2014. Argument is misconceived and fails to appreciate proximate facts, applicable Rules and context of existing Master Plan. It is not disputed that site in question was designated as public building site in the Master Plan, since 1985. Public building was defined under Lahore Development Authority Building and Zoning Regulations, 2007 inter alia included police station, besides other classes of buildings. It is not argued that Rules, 2014 have or had retrospective effect and upon promulgation thereof the existing Master Plan was no more enforceable. The significance, scope and effect of 'Lahore Development Authority Master Plan Rules, 2014' cannot be overlooked undermined, and particularly sub-rule (2) of Rule 13 thereof protects the land use plans till such time new Master Plan for Lahore Division is prepared or amended. Rule 14 of Master Plan Rules, 2014 provides that in case of any conflict or inconsistency in respect of the permitted and permissible uses in the existing master plan, preference would be extended to the Master Plan Rules 2014, vis- -vis other rules. Rule 13(2) and Rule 14 of Master Plan Rules, 2014 are reproduced hereunder:- "13(2). The existing outline development plans, agro-ville development plan, land use plans and other development plans, if any in the area notified by other Government agencies shall remain in force till such time the new master plan for Lahore Division is prepared or the same are amended by the Authorities.

14. These rules to prevail. - In case of any conflict or inconsistency in respect of the permitted and permissible uses in the existing master plan or outline development plan or such other similar plans or the Lahore Development Authority Land Use (Classification, Reclassification redevelopment) Rules, 2009 and these rules, the provisions of these rules shall prevail to the extent of such conflict inconsistency."

6. Petitioners failed to appreciate that grant of permission for construction of police station, at the site, already approved for public building site under approved Master Plan, does not imply conversion of land or revision or amendment in the Master Plan. It is pertinent to mention that site was designated and reserved for public building site, which cannot be classified as residential area for the purposes of land use, merely because it is abutting residential area. There is no cavil that matters have to be decided in the context of peculiar facts. Even otherwise petitioners fail to show how they would be prejudiced upon construction of police station. No case of encroachment of amenity area is made out. Decision to allow construction of Police Station at public building site otherwise are the domain of policy makers. This court, in the circumstances of the case, finds no persuasive reason to exercise constitutional jurisdiction in absence of any breach of fundamental rights. Petition manifest absence of bona fide intent.

7. In view of the above, instant constitutional petition is devoid or merits or any plausible cause of action, hence, same is, hereby, dismissed. MQ/J-3/L Petition dismissed.