Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 2339 2022 SLD 2339 2022 SCMR 2080
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No. 639 of 2014, decided on 12th May, 2022.
IJAZ UL AHSAN, MUNIB AKHTAR AND SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI, JJ
Syed Ali Zafar, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Khalid Javed, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 3. Malik Naeem lqbal, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent No. 4.

MALL DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD.

VS

WALEED KHANZADA and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937--- ----Chapt. V---Amenity plot---Lease hold rights of a commercial plot transferred by Defence Housing Authority (DHA) to a company (appellant)---Commercial plot merged with an “adjacent plot” sold to the appellant by DHA---Legality---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 of the High Court was upheld. (b) Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937--- ----Chapt. V---Land and valuable property, the rights of which vest in the Government---Such land or property cannot be…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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