Amenity plot
Amenity plot legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Karachi Development Authority Order (V of 1957), Art. 52-A [as amended by Karachi Development Authority (Sindh Amendment) Act, 1994]
Suit for declaration and injunction
Amenity plot
Nature, changing of
Applicant / defendant was a Cooperative Society which had established family park over an amenity plot
Respondents / plaintiffs claimed to be the allottees of suit land after nature of suit land was converted from amenity to residential
Judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of respondents / plaintiffs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court
Validity
Amendments in Art.52-A of Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957 were applicable, because conversion permission granted by the Authorities was of subsequent date
Conversion and sub-division of suit land was illegal from its inception
Authorities illegally converted land use, from amenity to residential, coupled with the fact that no construction was ever raised on suit land by respondents / plaintiffs
By operation of law when suit land was reverted to respondent / Society, thereafter it was allotted to applicant / Society
Applicant/ Society restored its original amenity purpose and suit land was utilized as family park for the residents of the vicinity
When suit was filed by respondents / plaintiffs, it was not maintainable
High Court set aside both the decisions passed by two Courts below and suit filed by respondents / plaintiff was dismissed
Revision was allowed accordingly.
When Karachi Development Authority (KDA) realized that the allotment orders were illegal and had been issued in respect of a park, and were issued by changing the designated land use to commercial use, the same were cancelled after issuance of requisite show cause notices
Some of the allotees filed constitutional petitions before the High Court, which ordered that the allottees be compensated 'by offering alternate property in their respective favour without any further delay, in order to maintain balance and to do complete justice'
Legality
Allottees were granted relief by the High Court which they had not even asked for
Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957 in its Preamble specifically mentioned the protection of public amenities like parks, gardens and playgrounds, etc.
Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, which whilst undergoing changes, does and always did prohibit the conversion of amenity plots and to change their designated use
Amenity plots cannot be changed to commercial use
What was reserved for the public could also not have been converted for private benefit, nor could the park be used for commercial use
Private use and/or profit cannot negate or undermine public use and benefit
Relief granted by the High Court was beyond what had been asked for, and it could not have been granted to do complete justice
On the contrary, the relief which was granted was in violation of the Master Plan of the City and the applicable law
Before any lease had been executed by KDA the illegality which had been committed was realized and KDA cancelled the allotment orders, after show cause notices were issued to the allottees
KDA had also not elected to retain/forfeit amounts paid by the allottees rather it had offered to refund the same
Impugned judgment of the High Court was not sustainable, and was accordingly set-aside
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Constitutional petition filed by the respondent with the plea that adjacent plot was an amenity pot and could not be merged with the commercial plot was allowed by the High Court
Held, that nothing was available on the record to show that the amenity plot was advertised to be sold/transferred or, that objections were called from the general public when it was purportedly being sold by converting it into a commercial plot, which casted a shadow on the entire transaction and suggested that the transfer of the amenity in favour of the appellant lacked transparency and adherence to the law
Letter of the Military Estates Officer was available on record which mentioned the adjacent plot as a "Park"
Fact that the Military Estates Officer mentioned the word "Park" in his letter established that the adjacent plot was not to be used for a commercial purpose
Adjacent plot was mentioned as a "Park" in various letters issued by DHA as well
Furthermore a clause of the agreement between DHA and the appellant only allowed the appellant to "develop" the adjacent plot with "amenities"
As such, the mode and manner in which the adjacent plot could be used had been restricted
Fact that appellant had paid consideration for the adjacent plot did not mean that it could do whatever it wanted with the adjacent plot
Mere payment of consideration did not mean that anything done illegally would get protection of the law
High Court was correct to hold that the adjacent plot was unlawfully annexed/amalgamated with the commercial plot and that the nature and land use of the adjacent plot could not be changed, altered or modified in violation of the rights of public at large
Appeal was dismissed and judgment of the High Court was upheld.
Mere execution of sale deed would not extend any right unto respondents to claim conversion of amenity plot into residential when Master plan/map of the housing scheme remained unrevised/unaltered
Limitations prescribed/defined in the Master plan/map would have preference
Neither the developer was impleaded as party to the proceedings nor same was produced as witness
None of the residents were impleaded as party to the suit, whose interest were intertwined with the determination of the controversy
Board was not obligated to effect extinguishment of amenity area by allowing conversion to residential area which per se was the violation of the Master plan/map and also prejudicial to the rights of the residents
Declared amenity plot could not be effaced/ removed from the master plan without adopting the procedures, if so, provided in law for alteration of plan/map
Revision petition against the decisions of the Courts below was allowed.
Petitioner claimed that he purchased the suit plot from respondent/Authority in 1982; that utility services were in his name; that respondent sent notice in 1990 that petitioner was an encroacher and should vacate the said plot, which was replied by the petitioner and civil Court had granted stay on 23/12/1990; respondent offered the petitioner an alternate plot which offer was accepted by the petitioner but the respondent had retracted; and that in 2011, respondent demolished the house/shops upon the said plot and took over the plot
Suit regarding the plot was decreed in favour of petitioner in 1999
Appeal of respondent was allowed
Validity
As per the version of petitioner, he was in occupation of plot since many years, hence due to efflux of time he was entitled for its allotment
Article 144 of Limitation Act, 1908, which dealt with adverse possession already stood omitted by Act II of 1995, thus the petitioner's stance was misconceived
Suit plot was a ST amenity plot and admittedly petitioner was not its owner
Petitioner could never purchase an amenity plot
Encroacher could not claim ownership/possession over any plot
Encroacher could never claim any alternate land/plot nor was entitled for any compensation
Simply on the basis of having utility bills in one's name, ownership rights could neither be claimed nor could be conferred upon a person
Simply the ground that the petitioner was an old occupant of the plot would not entitle him to be granted allotment of the said plot even if he had made some Pakka construction upon it
Petitioner was neither entitled for allotment of plot nor of any alternate plot or compensation, whatsoever
Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.
Interest of owners of immovable properties in amenity plots, reserved for convenience and comfort of residents, was a right enforceable by invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court
Sanctioned Master Plan, showing such amenity plots/area, could not be altered without inviting objections or obtaining "No Objection Certificates" from residents
Any modification in plan which would alter or radically change sanctioned scheme to take away the comfort or convenience provided through amenity plots/area, was a fraud upon residents, who purchased immovable properties on a representation through sanctioned plan
High Court set aside the action of converting Amenity plot reserved for playground into residential plots, as the same was result of arbitrary exercise of power
High Court directed the respondents to restore amenity plot reserved for playground
Constitutional petition was allowed, in circumstances.
Petitioner was Director General Development Authority and was arrested for auctioning amenity plots for commercial use through misuse of his position causing loss to the exchequer
Validity
Petitioner was obliged to ensure that amenity plots were used for their allocated purposes e.g., parks, playgrounds, schools, hospitals, mosques etc., which was to benefit the public in the area
Petitioner betrayed trust of people and illegally, by misusing his authority, let out such amenity plots for commercial purposes which deprived the public of valuable and vital facilities such as parks, playgrounds, schools, hospitals, mosques etc.
Petitioner illegally misused his authority in complete disregard of welfare of the people in favour of commercial interests
Prima facie sufficient material was available on record to connect petitioner to the offence
Bail was declined in circumstances.
Petitioner was a contractor and he was aggrieved of recalling of order passed by authorities whereby possession of a playground was taken back from him which was to be used as his dumping site during construction of a public project
Validity
Purported permission granted by authorities whereby possession of playground was handed over to petitioner and use of playground was allowed to be changed for storing construction material, equipment, machinery, etc., and parking dumpers and heavy vehicles, was void ab initio
Petitioner's possession of playground pursuant to such void permission was illegal
High Court directed the authorities to immediately takeover possession if petitioner was still in possession of playground or any part thereof and to restore playground forthwith to its original condition failing which officers of the authorities will expose themselves to disciplinary action
Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
Complexion and character of an amenity plot cannot be changed therefore, shifting of children park of society to playground was not in accordance with law
High Court directed the authorities to restore park and playground on their original location as per previously approved plan of society and set aside revised plan of society
High Court further directed authorities to dismantle any structure raised on amenity plot to restore and establish park in its original position
Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.
Relocation of amenity plot within the housing scheme at planning stage of the scheme and before its public advertisement
Permissibility
Present case was a case of relocation rather than conversion of an amenity plot at the embryonic stage of development of the scheme
When the disputed amendment in the layout plan was approved for relocating the amenity plot, the scheme was still at the planning and project implementation stage and the infrastructure and facilities of the housing scheme had not been implemented and its plots had not been announced for sale
Residents objecting to the amendment in the layout plan were neither residents nor owners of property in the housing scheme at the time when the layout plan was amended
Disputed relocation of the amenity plot did not eliminate or reduce the amenity area but actually increased its size from 1200 sq. yards to 2000 sq. yards
Nothing on record suggested that the amended layout plan was imbued with finality because neither was it notified under Art. 52-A(1) of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, nor was it represented or was advertised to the public for securing the sale of plots in the scheme
Amendment in the layout plan, that was neither notified nor executed or represented to the public, could not become basis for asserting third party's vested rights
Relocation of the disputed amenity plot from one commercial area to another within the settlement scheme fully complied with the relevant regulations prescribing land usage ratios reserved for commercial areas and also for amenity plots in the housing settlement in question
Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, was not applicable to the amended layout plan in the present case
Supreme Court observed that judicial intervention was not required in the present case, however, it was without prejudice to the enforcement of Arts. 40 & 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, by residents/owners from the public against amendments made after the notification of the scheme's layout plan or the acquisition of proprietary interest by the objecting members of the public in any plot neighbouring the disputed commercial plot or any changes made to an amenity plot after amendment of Art. 52-A of Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957 [by way of Karachi Development Authority (Sindh Amendment) Act, 1994]
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Amenity plot could not be allotted/leased for commercial purposes.
In civilized societies everywhere in the world, civic facilities are meant for benefit of public at large are to be consciously guarded to protect interest of residents of the area and public at large
Authorities were duty bound to check that no unauthorized or illegal construction was raised over any piece of land in the scheme which under the layout plan was meant for any other particular purpose/amenity purpose
Even when amenity plot was to be changed for the benefit of public at large, then procedure prescribed by law for such purpose was to be adhered to; objections were to be invited before change of use and due opportunity of hearing was to be given to residents of the area who were likely to be adversely affected
School was being run in a residential area and disputed plot was originally meant for park, which was surrounded by walls and had cemented floor and was contrary to original scheme
High Court directed the authorities to demolish all illegal construction over disputed plot and restore the same to its original position of park / garden, meant for the use of residents of the area
Petition was allowed in circumstances.
Bye-laws of Cantonment Board specifically provided that even for conversion of residential plot into commercial, it required certain steps to be taken under bye-laws of the Cantonment Board
Amenity plot meant purely for public park was annexed with a commercial plot and that too without any consideration when such conversion was not permissible under any circumstances
Dispute was not even of conversion of residential plot into commercial
Entire exercise of annexing amenity plot meant for park with commercial plot was illegal, without any lawful authority and of no legal effect
High Court directed the authorities to take appropriate action for retrieving the plot originally meant for park
High Court also directed the authorities to remove any construction that had so far been raised thereon and to restore it as a park for common use of residents of the area
Petition was allowed in circumstances.
Petitioner was owner of a house located in a residential zone of the Defence Housing Authority ("DHA") and impugned the decision of the Executive Board of the DHA to convert the adjacent plot which was designated "parking area" into a commercial plaza
Contention of the petitioner was that the Executive Board was illegally converting an amenity plot located in a residential area for commercial use
Validity
Parking area, in question, was located in a residential area and had no commercial buildings connected with it in terms of definition of "parking space" contained in Regln. 2(y) of the Defence Housing Authority Construction and Development Regulations, 2007 and could accommodate the overflow of traffic from nearby mosque and school and was open for use by the public
Parking plaza, if constructed at the said land, would be a public convenience facility that promoted accessibility of its area for visitors and on account of its availability for public use for the parking space, was therefore an amenity plot
Parking space did not as such host any trade commercial or business activity
In the light of the Defence Housing Authority Construction and Development Regulations, 2007 and the law, the parking area was not a commercial plot and could not be converted for full-fledged commercial use
Power of the Executive Board of DHA under Art.7(1)(j) Defence Housing Authority Lahore Order, 2002 may be exercised in a manner consistent either with design and characteristics of a parking plaza or of a residential building, however such statutory power may not be exercised to convert an amenity plot to a construction and the use that violated the safeguards implicit in the plot's dedication as a parking space
In the present case a commercial structure was intended to be erected rather than a parking plaza, and on a reasonable interpretation of Regulations, it was fair that such construction in a parking area should be prevented and same should be made to conform the Rules and standards applicable thereto as otherwise the structural harmony, privacy, security and tranquility of the residential neighborhood may be harmed
Impugned construction of a building comprising of a basement plus three floors on the parking area, was therefore excluded as the land in question was not a commercial plot and construction thereon must respect the building byelaws of the zone in which such land was located
High Court disallowed the impugned commercial construction on the parking area, however observed that the DHA was at liberty to consider and authorize other suitable construction on said land that complied with limitations outlined by the High Court and to permit such structure to be erected that did not violate the safety, privacy and tranquility of the neighborhood and complied with the regulations and byelaws applicable thereto
Constitutional petition was allowed, accordingly.
Plaintiffs claimed to be owners of plots in question and assailed order passed by defendants, wherein the plots were claimed to be amenity plots and defendants intended to dispossess the plaintiffs
Judgment and decree passed in favour of plaintiffs by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate Court
Validity
Defendants did not succeed in establishing the fact that either a scheme had been duly approved by authorities or plots were reserved for the purpose of open space or amenity plots
Defendants did not produce much evidence to discharge onus of proof placed on them
Authorities had never sanctioned any scheme for development of alleged open space nor was any lawful order, site plan or notification made or issued in such regard
Plots in question belonged to plaintiffs who were bona fide purchasers / owners of the same and those did not fall within the definition of amenity plots
Findings recorded by two courts below were legal, valid and supported by record and no illegality or irregularity on the part of Trial Court or Lower Appellate Court had been pointed out by defendants
Both the courts below did not misread or ignore any evidence
High Court declined to interfere in concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two courts below
Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Plaintiffs claimed that suit land was classified as amenity use and was owned by Karachi Water and Sewerage Board but defendant authorities in an attempt to earn money tried to grab the land and converted same into a commercial building site
Plaint was rejected by High Court on the ground that it was barred under the law
Validity
Separate legal entity was given to the Board by S. 20 (2) (i) of Karachi Water and Sewerage Board Act, 1996, which provided that all movable and immovable properties including all water works and instalations held by the old Board would vest in Karachi Water and Sewerage Board
No title document was required to be produced to prove the ownership of the Board who by operation of law had become owner of the entire plot including its all water works and instalations, designated for the purpose of an Ejector having been held by it since long
Defendant authority had to prove its claim and title over the plot in dispute to justify its subsequent transfer/mutation in favour of defendants
Although controversy relating to construction of building at the plot in question depended upon determination of title, yet it also needed to be established as to whether the plot was an amenity plot and could not be converted for residential or commercial use; plot was illegally sub-divided into three parts; the approval of building plan was in violation of relevant rules and regulations; construction of building over the plot in question was in violation of such approved plan; and whether such construction was liable to be demolished
All such controversial factors could be resolved after affording full opportunity to parties including all auction purchasers of the plot to adduce such evidence in the suit
Till such time application for grant of temporary injunction against such construction deserved consideration within the parameters of principle of equity
High Court set aside the order of rejection of plaint and remanded the case
High Court directed the Trial Court to determine all mixed questions of facts involved in the suit with other factual controversy, after recording of evidence of parties
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Use of amenity 'plot cannot be converted into any commercial or residential use.
"Amenity plot", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124932026
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Amenity plot"
2020 C L C 1638
MUHAMMAD DAWOOD WAGAN and others — Petitioners Versus The PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary Local Government Department, Karachi — Respondent
Court: Sindh (Hyderabad Bench)2007 M L D 1780
AL-HIJAZ EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY through President, Karachi — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT through Nazim, Karachi and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Karachi2022 C L C 543
Mian TRUST through Representative/Trustee — Petitioners Versus LYARI EXPRESSWAY RESETTLEMENT PROJECT through Project Director and 2 others — Respondents
Court: SindhP L D 2006 Karachi 10
SHAFIQUR REHMAN and others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary and others — Respondents
Court: High Court2022 Y L R 1171
CANTONMENT BOARD, SARGODHA through Executive Officer Cantonment Board — Appellant Versus SHAHBAZ FAROOQ and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore2008 Y L R 233
MUHAMMAD SALEEM ASAR and others — Plaintiffs Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY and others — Defendants
Court: KarachiP L D 2003 Karachi 162
M.A. HAMID ALI BUKSH‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT and others‑‑‑Defendants
Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 117(2)‑‑‑Cancellation of Allotments of Plots Reserved for Amenity/Community Purposes M.L.Os.1977, Zone (C) Nos. 34, 89 & 247‑‑‑Amenity plot‑‑‑Conversion into commercial plot‑‑‑Suit plot was amenity plot reserved for park as shown in the lay‑out plan of the area‑‑‑Such plot was covered by Martial Law Orders Nos. 34, 89 & 247‑‑‑Conversion of amenity plot into commercial plot was contrary to the, law‑‑‑Amenity plot could not be converted into commercial plot.2019 M L D 911
Syed NASIR ABBASS — Petitioner Versus The CHAIRMAN, NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU (NAB), ISLAMABAD and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh2008 C L C 667
MARVI MEDICAL CENTRE ASSOCIATION through President — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through City Nazim/Caretaker, Karachi and 3 others — Respondents
Court: Karachi2021 M L D 1442
ABDUL HALEEM and others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF SINDH, through Secretary Cooperative
Court: Sindh (Sukkur Bench)