Housing Scheme

2025 PLD 54 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

R. 149(2)Quetta Development Authority Ordinance (IV of 1978), Preamble & S. 40Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Housing schemeConversion/usage of residential area into commercial areaScope and effectFundamental rights of residentsScope

Petitioners, residents of a Housing Scheme being regulated under Queta Development Authority/QDA (scheme-in-question), were aggrieved of involvement of the private respondents in commercial activities (in the shape of Offices, Clinics, Guest Houses, Restaurants and Schools etc.) in the residential area of scheme-in-question

Contention of the petitioners was that on account of mushroom growth of unlawful commercial activities, they were facing multifarious inconveniences and their fundamental rights of free movement and peaceful enjoyment of property had seriously been jeopardized

Validity

It was duty of respondent/QDA to provide a complete residential atmosphere to the residents of scheme-in -question

Due to negligence on the part of authority and non-implementation of the provisions of law, mushroom growth of non-residential/commercial activities-in-question have cropped up which has overloaded the domestic facilities meant for residents of the area in the shape of choking of drains, parking of vehicles on roads/streets, traffic congestion, use of extra electricity and gas

Engagement of private respondents in commercial activities in residential areas are causing harm to the environment, public health and the general well-being of the community which warrants intervention by the High Court to safeguard the interests of the public and ensure compliance with the law

High Court directed the official respondents (Quetta Development Authority) to cease all commercial activities found in violation of applicable laws/regulations immediately

Constitutional petition, was allowed accordingly.

2025 PLD 54 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

R. 149 (2)Quetta Development Authority Ordinance (IV of 1978), Preamble & S. 40Housing schemeConversion/usage of residential area into commercial areaScope and effect

Petitioners, residents of a Housing Scheme being regulated under Quetta Development Authority/QDA (scheme-in-question), were aggrieved of involvement of the private respondents in commercial activities (in the shape of Offices, Clinics, Guest Houses, Restaurants and Schools etc.) in the residential area of scheme-in-question

Contention of the petitioners was that on account of mushroom growth of unlawful commercial activities, they were facing multifarious inconveniences

Validity

Rule 149(2) of the Balochistan Building Control And Town Planning Rules, 2022, prescribes a complete procedure to avail sanction or approval for converting residential area into commercial

Not a single document had been brought on record by the private respondents to show that any such prescribed sanction/approval for converting the disputed premises into commercial or any other particular purpose, other than the residence, had been obtained

Record also revealed that the QDA (Respondent) merely issued notices regarding violations to the private respondents yet the same were issued on temporary basis and there was nothing on record to show that any penal action was initiated or taken against them

Private respondents were involved in commercial activities in the residential area which wrong was recurring since long and the concerned authorities of the official respondents were negligent and remained mum

High Court directed the official respondents (Quetta Development Authority) to cease all commercial activities found in violation of applicable laws/ regulations immediately

Constitutional petition, was allowed accordingly.

2025 PLD 54 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

R. 149(2)Quetta Development Authority Ordinance (IV of 1978), Preamble & S. 40Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 25Housing schemeUsage of residential area as commercial one since longVested rightNegative equalityWrong concession

Petitioners, residents of a Housing Scheme being regulated under Queta Development Authority/QDA (scheme-in-question), were aggrieved of involvement of the private respondents in commercial activities (in the shape of Offices, Clinics, Guest Houses, Restaurants and Schools etc.) in the residential area of Scheme-in-question

Contention of the petitioners was that on account of mushroom growth of unlawful commercial activities, they were facing multifarious inconveniences and their fundamental rights of free movement and peaceful enjoyment of property had seriously been jeopardized

Contention of private respondent was that a vested right had been created in his favour as he was occupying the premises for the commercial activity since long, as such commercial activities were going on around the area

Held, that said contention was without any substance for the reason that Art. 25 of the Constitution does not envisage any negative equality

Such right can only be claimed when decision is taken in accordance with law

A wrong concession in favour of one person does not entitle any other person to claim benefit of a wrong decision

If such type of activities are allowed, it would seriously impair the use of the property not only of petitioners but of all those who were living in such residential areas

High Court directed the official respondents (Quetta Development Authority) to cease all commercial activities found in violation of applicable laws/regulations immediately

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2024 MLD 61 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Rr. 3 & 10Partition of landPrincipleHousing schemePlotting of land

Petitioners were aggrieved of partition of land in question made by revenue authorities in favour of respondents/co-sharers

Validity

Factum of plotting, non-construction of any house over land under partition and report filed by Patwari made it clear that plotting had been done recently

Plotting of colony was without any proper legal authentication of concerned authority, and it could not place any legal bar on revenue authority to conduct partition of land to safeguard right of all co-sharers in each and every inch of joint land

One co-sharer was the protector of possession of all others and a co-sharer with symbolic possession even could safeguard his rights

High Court declined to interfere in the orders passed by revenue authorities as the same were self-contained and in accordance with law

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015 SCMR 1172 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Art. 52-AHousing schemeInfrastructural facilitiesAmenity plotLaw restricting conversion of residential/amenity plots to commercial use, application ofScope

Law restricting conversion of land usage in housing schemes was not to be applied rigidly and pedantically but was meant to protect the public interest and public convenience

Provision and preservation of suitable infrastructure in target area of a development scheme was a public interest requirement of the law

Infrastructural facilities of a housing scheme or society like electricity, water, gas, roads, sewerage, etc. could be overburdened dramatically when land reserved for residential purposes was converted to commercial use

Equally, public interest suffered through deprivation when amenity plots were converted to other use

Irregular and unlawful conversion of plot usage created undue congestion and load on the infrastructure and facilities of a housing scheme which put the entire community to injury and loss

To prevent such congestion was the primary consideration of the court in ordering the strict enforcement of building and land usage laws

However, in a case where the relocation (as against elimination or curtailment) of an amenity plot in a scheme took place prior to or during the stage of implementation of its infrastructural provisions or before representation to or use by the public, the changes made in the layout plan should not injure public interest because such proposed changes could anticipate and cater any increased requirements resulting from the relocation by making adjustments in the design and planning of the infrastructural provisions of the scheme.

2015 SCMR 1172 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Arts. 40 & 52-AHousing schemeAmenity plotLayout plan of housing scheme, alteration/amendment in

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.

1982 SCMR 1034 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 25-Housing Scheme-Contended that by virtue of extra-charges made in consideration for leaving open space at back of his plot, appellant acquired a vested right in open space and as such no rights remained with Improvement Trust or its successors which could be transferred to respondent allottee-Lahore Development Authority denying recovery of any extra amount from appellant-Appellant relying on a copy of resolution allegedly passed at a meeting of Lahore Improvement Trust and purporting to show an amount having been received by Trust from appellant on account of price of open space charges Document purporting to be a copy of resolution of Trust appearing to be spurious-Appellant found to have made no reference to such document before High Court or to have made any attempt to get it summoned-Appellant hence cannot be allowed to take advantage of such document for first time in appeal before Supreme Court-Conveyance deed operating only to transfer rights to appellant in a specified plot and no rights h