| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1850 2017 SLD 1850 2017 PLD 81 |
Islamabad High Court
Writ Petition No. 3043 of 2016, decision Date : 03-03-2017,hearing Date : 27-01-2017
ATHAR MINALLAH, JUSTICE
Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, Advocates Supreme Court for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 3043 of 2016).Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in W.P. No.3160 of 2016).Asma Jahangir, Khurram M. Hashmi and Barrister Sal
Writ Petition No. 3043 of 2016, decision Date : 03-03-2017,hearing Date : 27-01-2017
ATHAR MINALLAH, JUSTICE
Barrister Aitzaz Ahsan, Barrister Gohar Ali Khan, Advocates Supreme Court for Petitioner (in W.P. No. 3043 of 2016).Khawaja Haris Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner (in W.P. No.3160 of 2016).Asma Jahangir, Khurram M. Hashmi and Barrister Sal
BNP PVT. LTD. & OTHERSVSCAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Law: Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960)
Section: 4,5(2),11,12,13,14D,50,51
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960)-------Ss. 5(2), 11, 12 & 13 --- Islamabad Capital Territory (Zoning) Regulations, 1992, Reglns. 8, 13, 14, 19 & 27---Islamabad Building Regulations, 1963, Reglns. 12 & 13---Islamabad Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005, Reglns.2.2, 3.9, 3.10 & 3.12.9---Islamabad Land Disposal Regulations, 2005. Regln.6---National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.9---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Allotment of plot on basis of lease, cancellation of---Legality---Illegalities in the bidding process---Violation of terms of the lease---Effect---Subject plot was allotted on the basis of a lease to petitioner-company ("company") to construct a hotel---Company started construction of residential apartments on the plot and offered it to the public for sale---Subsequently Board of the Capital Development Authority ("Authority") cancelled allotment of the plot on basis of violation of terms of the lease---Company and purchasers, who had paid sale consideration for the purchase of respective apartments in the building, impugned the decision of the Authority by filing Constitutional petitions before the High Court---Held, that Cabinet had not given its approval at any stage for amending the Master Plan and the sanctioned Scheme made and prepared under the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 ("Ordinance") for the creation of a plot for a hotel, let alone a plot meant for the construction of 'residential apartments'---At no stage was any approval given by the Board of the Authority for the creation of a plot at the site for construction of a multi-storeyed building meant for residential apartments---All the advertisements published in the newspapers, inviting response from interested parties, had explicitly described the plot as being offered for the construction of a hotel---Nothing has been placed on record to show that the plot was part of a sanctioned Scheme or that it was included in the manner as prescribed under the mandatory provisions of the Ordinance---Record did not reflect that the Authority, at any stage, had prepared a…