CLC 2008

2008 PLP 642 (CLC)

through Manager — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary,

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
2007-October-11
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2008 PLP 642 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties through Manager — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary,
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan (1973)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 642 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 642 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 642 (CLC) (through Manager — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Representation

  • Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Unauthorized construction, demolition of

Grievance of petitioner was that unauthorized construction was being raised by respondent against approved building plan over the compulsory open space

Alleged unauthorized construction was prima facie established by inspection carried out under the orders of the High Court

No rules and regulations or bye-laws were shown to the court under which power had been conferred on the Authority to regularize unauthorized construction

Impugned illegal and unauthorized construction being raised by the respondent on plot in question was ordered to be attached

No reason was available to keep petition pending indefinitely when respondent had not seriously contested the same and conduct of the regulating Authority was also indifferent

Prima facie no material was on record to show that Authority had any power or jurisdiction to compound any violation of the building plan--Subsequent permission being without lawful authority, was not sustainable, in eye of law

Order accordingly.

Judgment & Decree

MUSHIR ALAM, J.

Grievance shown in the petition is that unauthorized construction is being raised by the respondent No.4 on plot No. C-45, SITE, Karachi inasmuch as compulsory open space has been covered.

2. The matter is fixed for regular hearing but none is present on behalf of the respondents.

3. It appears that raising of unauthorized construction was prima facie established by the inspection carried out under the orders of this Court on 6-10-2004. The Commissioner has given his detailed report on 23-10-2004. It appears that despite the restraining orders the construction continued unabated. On 31-3-2005, it was contended that the unauthorized construction raised by respondent No.4 has been approved by S.I.T.E.. However, no such rules and regulations or bye-laws were shown to the Court under which authority has been conferred on SITE to regularize unauthorized construction. S.I.T.E was directed to file comments within 15 days together with the bye-laws and the approved building plan in respect of the above plot. It seems that the directions of the Court were ignored as none of the above has been filed.

4. Eventually, vide order dated 27-10-2006 the impugned illegal and unauthorized construction being raised by the respondent No.4 on the said plot was ordered to be attached.

5. We, therefore, see no reason to keep this petition pending indefinitely when the respondent No.4 has apparently not seriously contesting the same and the conduct of the regulating authority, i.e. SITE is also indifferent.

6. Under the circumstances, we would direct that the unauthorized construction raised against the approved building plan dated 9-1-2001 over the compulsory open space be demolished to the extent of violation.

7. Prima facie there is no material to show that SITE has any authority or jurisdiction to compound any violation of the building plan. Therefore, the subsequent permission dated 11-9-2004, being without lawful authority is not sustained.

8. The petition stands disposed of in above terms along with the pending applications. H.B.T./A-12/K Order Accordingly.