| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 65 2017 SLD 65 2017 SCMR 1801 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 319 to 323 of 2006, 86-K and 87-K of 2011, decision & heard on:22-02- 2017. (Against the judgments Dated 17.12.2003/5.11.2004/ 11.11.2004/5.7.2010 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.Ps. Nos. D-1215 of 2003, D-771, D-936, D-
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE
Sh. Jamil Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in all cases). Shehryar Qazi, Additional A.G. for
Respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 20 of 2006). Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Adnan Iqbal Ch
Civil Appeals Nos. 319 to 323 of 2006, 86-K and 87-K of 2011, decision & heard on:22-02- 2017. (Against the judgments Dated 17.12.2003/5.11.2004/ 11.11.2004/5.7.2010 of the High Court of Sindh, Karachi passed in C.Ps. Nos. D-1215 of 2003, D-771, D-936, D-
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE
Sh. Jamil Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate-on-Record for Appellant (in all cases). Shehryar Qazi, Additional A.G. for
Respondent No. 2 (in C.A. No. 20 of 2006). Rasheed A. Rizvi, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Adnan Iqbal Ch
KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY THROUGH DIRECTOR GENERAL, CIVIL CENTRE, GULSHANEIQBAL, KARACHI
VS
MST. HAWA BAI AND 6 OTHERS
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 185(3)
Constitution of Pakistan--- ----Art. 185(3)---Leave refusing order passed by the Supreme Court---Such order was not law enunciated by the Supreme Court and had no binding effect. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CHIEF JUSTICE:---.--- Leave in these matters was granted to consider whether the notification dated 20.7.1998 was neither issued by the Provincial Government nor was it gazetted. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the appellant candidly conceded that the areas where the properties in issue are situated have been commercialized, however, he argued that even upon such commercialization the owners of the properties which were previously residential in nature are not entitled to use them (properties) as commercial properties per se without paying the applicable commercialization fee/charges. Contrarily, learned counsel for the respondents argued that once the area where the properties are situated is declared as a commercial area, the owners are not required to pay any commercialization fee/charges. 2. Having gone through the documents on the record particularly the Change of Land Use and Master Planning Bye Laws - 2003 which are approved vide Resolution No. 383 dated 6.1.2004 by the appellant upon which reliance has been placed by the respondents, we are of the considered view that though the respondents can seek…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492