2004 PLP 1672 (YLR)

(iv) Writ Petition No.17959‑99, (v) Writ Petition No.18934‑99, (vi) Writ Petition No.18935‑99, (vii) Writ Petition No.18936‑99,

2. The learned counsel of the petitioner has sent a written request for adjournment; which is produced in Court today. Office issued cause list to the respective members of the Bar with the following note: "The old cases will not be adjourned except with prior adjustment or with the consent of opposite counsel." The learned counsel for the petitioner did not get the case adjusted well in time, in terms of the aforesaid note. Even the learned counsel of the petitioner did not bother to send written request for adjournment one day prior to the date of hearing. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not even sent any associate or requested any advocate to request for adjournment on his behalf. Copy of the adjournment has been sent by the learned counsel for the petitioner through his clerk in the Court today. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, I am not, inclined to adjourn the case and decide the aforesaid writ petitions on merit.

3. The petitioner has filed the aforesaid writ petitions with the prayer that respondents have no lawful authority to convert the Green Belt into a commercial car park. The contents of the writ petitions further reveal that action of the respondents is without lawful authority as the respondents have no lawful authority to change the master plan, which was sanctioned at the time of the scheme in question qua the residential area.

4. Learned Legal Advisor of the respondent L.D.A. submits that the ownership of the area vests with the Provincial Government and the L.D.A. is not undertaking the work for the constructions of Public Car Park in the area. Respondent No.2 has also received a complaint in this regard.

5. Mr. Muhammad Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate‑General, submits that action of the respondents is in accordance with law.

6. I have given the anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel of the parties and perused the record.

7. It is pertinent to mention here that respondents were directed to file report and parawise comments in the year 1999 but respondents Nos.1 and 3 failed to file report and parawise comments till date. Office sent notices to the parties on 17‑1‑2004 for 13‑2‑2004. The representative of respondents Nos.1 and 3 did not enter appearance despite repeated calls. Respondent No.2 has taken stand that respondent No.2 has not converted the green belt into commercial car park. Respondents Nos. 1 and 3 did not file as mentioned above, report and parawise comments. It would be appropriate to reproduce the objective of modern city planning from Chapter Encyclopaedia Britannic, 1963 Edition, referred by the Honourable Supreme Court in "Abdul Razzak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others" PLD 1994 SC

512. The relevant observation is as follows:‑ The ultimate goals were social although the plans themselves related to physical thing. They were deeply involved with intermediate economic objectives. The expression of the goals was, of course, coloured by the culture of the society seeking them. In the U.S. and countries following Western European traditions, the ideal urban environment would reconcile the maximum opportunity for individual choice with protection for the individual from the adverse effects of the actions of others. Within this philosophy, city planning would probably seek: (1) the orderly arrangement of parts of the city residential, business, industrial, etc. so that each part could perform its functions with minimum cost and conflict; (2) an efficient system of circulation within the city and to the outside world, using ' the maximum advantage all modes trans portations: (3) the development of each part of the city to optimum standards, as of lot size, sunlight and green space in residential areas, and parking building spacing in business areas; (4) the provision of safe, sanitary and comfortable housing in a variety of dwelling types to meet the needs of all families; (5) the provision of recreation, schools and other community services, of a high standard of size, location and quality; (6) the provision of adequate and economical water supply, sewerage, utilities and public services. In any community, these goals might be supplemented by special goals, such as preservation of a historical area, or the protection of property values, or the efficient conduct of Government. On occasion, the goals of some powerful special interests might be inconsistent with those of others; e.g. the preservation of slum property values and the provision of adequate housing. Furthermore, the statement of ideal goals required the use of relative terms, such as "adequate" "high standard" etc., which are relative rather than absolute, and change from time to time. Therefore, inherent in the concepts was the recognition that an ideal is not a fixed objective, but itself will changes; that the ideal city can be striven toward; but never achieved." From the above quoted passage from Encyclopaedia Britannica, it is evident that the concept of modern city planning inter alia envisages the orderly arrangement of parts of the city residential, business and industrial etc., so that each part could perform its functions with minimum cost and conflict. The paramount object of modern city planning seems to be to ensure maximum comforts for the residents of the city by providing maximum facilities referred to hereinabove. It must, therefore, follow that a public functionaries entrusted with the work to achieve the above objective cannot act in a manner, which may defeat the above objective. Deviation from the planned scheme will naturally result in discomfort and inconvenience to others. Respondent No. 3 in the above quoted paras.15 to 17 of the memo. of petition has rightly highlighted that the society in which the plot is situated was planed on the assumption that a 273 square yards would have normal residential and not flats.

8. The Honourable Supreme Court reiterated and re‑affirmed the aforesaid view in "Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC), Karachi and 4 others" 1999 SCMR 2883. This Court has also followed the said view in "New Garden Town Welfare Society (Registered) through President v. L.D.A. and 2 others" 2001 CLC 1589. The Honourable Supreme Court also affirmed the earlier view in Abdur Razzak's case in judgment dated 19‑4‑2003 passed in Civil Petition No.3772‑L of 2001 and in Civil Petition No.3170‑L of 2002.

9. In view of what has been discussed above, these Constitutional petitions are disposed of with the direction to the respondents to look into the matter and pass an appropriate order strictly in accordance with law keeping in view the aforesaid principles preferably within 3 months after receiving the order of this Court. They are further directed to submit their report to the Deputy Registrar (1) of this Court within stipulated period. Mian Muzaffar Hussain, Advocate/Legal Advisor of the respondents (L.D.A.) and Muhammad‑ Hanif Khatana, Additional Advocate‑General are directed to notify the order to the respondents for necessary action and compliance. With these observations these writ petitions are disposed of. H.B.T./Z‑12/L Order accordingly.