MLD 2013

2013 PLP 1441 (MLD)

Messrs HONDA BREEZE through Managing Partner — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, MULTAN and 3 others — Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2012-December-18
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2013 PLP 1441 (MLD)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties Messrs HONDA BREEZE through Managing Partner — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, MULTAN and 3 others — Respondents
Primary Law Constitution of Pakistan
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 1441 (MLD)?

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

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 1441 (MLD)?

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

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

Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 1441 (MLD) (Messrs HONDA BREEZE through Managing Partner — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, MULTAN and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Constitution of Pakistan

Representation

  • Malik Muhammad Tariq Rajwana for Petitioner.
  • Syed Muhammad Ali Gillani for Petitioner (in Writ Petitions Nos.3210, 4657 of 2006 and 2148 of 2007).
  • Talib Hussain for Petitioner (in Writ Petition No. 6251 of 2011).
  • Haji Muhammad Aslam for Respondent No.1.

Headnotes / Summary

Art. 199

Constitutional petition

Commercialization of property by municipal authority

Commercialization fee

Petitioners contended that certain properties had attained the nature of commercial properties and they became aggrieved when the Municipal Authority put checks on the nature of such properties and on the illegal sanction of commercial site plans and over activates being carried out at such properties

High Court observed that it was not clear as to which commercialization policy was in vogue in the relevant area and whether such policy could be imposed retrospectively

High Court directed the District Coordination Officer to undertake consolidated efforts by associating representatives from Housing and Environment Planning Department, Development Authority, petitioners, City District Government, Chamber of Commerce and all other stake holders and recommend a uniform policy and get sanction for the same from the Provincial Government and then to apply such policy in letter and spirit

High Court further directed that the commercialization fee or site plan sanctioning fee, deposited by some petitioners would be retained by the authorities in favour of the purpose for which the same were deposited, but the said amount would be subject to final outcome of the new policy and until the final policy, no property in the city would be sealed.

Judgment & Decree

IBAD-UR-REHMAN LODHI, J.

While hearing Writ Petition No.4687 of 2006, Writ Petition No. 3210 of 2006, Writ Petition No.4657 of 2006, Writ Petition No.2148 of 2007 and Writ petition No.6251 of 2011 certain facts, which emerges for consideration, are that in the City area of Multan whether it is within the Municipal Control of Multan Development Authority, Tehsil Municipal Administration (four in number), City District Government or the Housing, Physical and Environmental Planning Department, there are certain properties which either after sanction of the concerned authority or without any such permission attained the status of commercial nature. With regard to some of the properties, even the site plans for commercial construction have been sanctioned but in number of cases the property underneath the commercial building had not yet been formally commercialized and for want of such sanction, neither any formalities were completed nor the owners of such buildings were required to meet with any formal requirements. The petitioners in writ petitions, however, became aggrieved when the relevant Municipal Authority put a check either on the nature of the property or illegal sanction of commercial site plans and the commercial activities being carried out over such properties were being questioned seriously rather in cases of Writ Petition No.4687 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.2148 of 2007, the concerned properties were sealed by one of the above noted authorities.

2. After some partial arguments from both the sides, it transpired that the agencies/authorities are not clear as to which commercialization policy is in vogue in the relevant area and whether any such policy could have been imposed retrospectively and what would be the criteria for charging for commercialization of the landed properties. A number of policies/notifications/rules have been referred by learned counsel appearing either for TMA or City District Government. Neither of such policy, etc. has an effect of over all coverage to the controversy raised in these petitions and in any view even authorities which should be empowered to enforce the policy of the Government in this regard are not clear as to which extent they are competent to get the policy enforced in their respective areas of Municipal control. It is the duty of the Government to formulate a uniform policy free from any sort of discrimination by laying down the principles for commercialization in all the urban areas and niceties thereof and also as to what is to be charged from the citizens intending to get their properties commercialized and to get site plans sanctioned for construction of such commercial buildings.

3. District Coordination Officer, Multan is directed to undertake consolidated efforts by associating representatives from Housing, Physical and Environmental Planning Department, Multan Development Authority, Town Municipal Authorities of Sher Shah Town and Bosan Town, Shah Rukan-e-Alam Town and Musa Pak Shaheed Town, City District Government, writ petitioners, Chamber of Commerce and Industry of Multan and all others stake holders and to recommend a uniform policy to meet with the requirements as noted herein above and to get sanction of Government of the Punjab in this regard and then to apply such policy in its letter and spirit. The writ petitioners in Writ Petition No 4687 of 2006 and Writ Petition No.2148 of 2007, according to them, were forced and coerced to deposit some exorbitant amounts in the garb of commercialization fee or the site plan sanctioning fee which would be retained by the authorities in favour of which the same were deposited but the same will be subject to final outcome of such policy, which would be affirmed and also the present writ petitions, however, building subject matter of Writ Petition No.2148 of 2007 is ordered to be de-sealed forthwith and no property whatsoever situated in Multan City will be sealed by any of the named agencies till the conclusion of the exercise which District Coordination Officer is directed to take in near future.

4. District Coordination Officer, Multan will take effective measures to fulfil the assigned job and conclude the same by 31-1-2013, whereafter the policy so formulated and sanction of the Government of Punjab in this regard would be placed before this Court and further hearing of all these petitions will be taken on any date during 2nd week of February, 2013. KMZ/H-3/L Order accordingly.