Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 870 2013 SLD 870 2013 CLC 1580
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.4751 of 2013, decision dated: 24-04-2013
SHOAIB SAEED, J

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

Syed MUSTAFA HUSSAIN

VS

DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, MULTAN and 3 others

Law: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001)

Section: 146D,141(1)

Law: Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001)

Section: 146D,141(1)

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Punjab Local Government Ordinance (XIII of 2001)-------Ss. 146-D & 141(1) ---Building Zoning Bye-Laws 2001, Clause 8.2.2(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Non-payment of commercialization fee---Powers of Inspector---Premises of the petitioner was sealed on the ground of non-payment of commercialization fee---Contention of the petitioner was that the Inspector was not empowered to seal the premises and no notice was given to him---Validity---Petitioner was owner of the property and building plan was sanctioned and approved for Bar-B-Q and authorities issued notices that petitioner should get the site commercialized after payment of commercialization fee---Petitioner instituted civil suit wherein injunctive order was issued by the Trial Court which still held the field---Stand taken by the authorities was not in accordance with law and S.146-D of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001 and clause 8.2.2(b) of the Building Zoning Bye-laws, 2001, read with S.141(1) of the Punjab Local Government Ordinance, 2001, did not empower the Inspector (Commercialization) to seal the premises due to non-payment of commercialization fee and clause 8.2.2(b) of the Building Zoning Bye-laws, 2001, bound the authorities that after completion of codal formalities, might seal building on the ground that the building was in the process of illegal construction or had been illegally constructed---Property, in the present case, was approved under the law prevalent in the year 1993, and revised plan was sanctioned in accordance with law and clause 8.2.2(b) of the Building Zoning Bye-laws, 2001, was not applicable---Statute which created new liabilities in connection with the past transaction should not be given retrospective operation and when the lis was sub judice before the Trial Court and injunctive order was still operative, the act of sealing of the premises of the petitioner by the authorities was mala fide, illegal and without lawful authority---Constitutional petition was allowed and the authorities were directed to de-seal the premises of the petitioner---Authorities, however, were at liberty to initiate proceedings for recovery of…
🔒
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