| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 5349 2025 SLD 5349 = 2025 LHC 7872 |
Lahore High Court
W.P. No.12418 of 2025
PRESENT; (Abid Hussain Chattha) JUDGE (Asim Hafeez) Judge.
Date of hearing: 19.11.2025. Petitioner by: M/s Muhammad Ali Siddiqui, Nauman Aftab and Fatima Safeer, Advocates.
Respondents by: Mr. Tariq Murtaza Khan Malezai, Advocate alongwith Muhammad Iqbal, Chief Officer Municipal Committee, Multan. Mr. Masroor Haider Usman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab.
W.P. No.12418 of 2025
PRESENT; (Abid Hussain Chattha) JUDGE (Asim Hafeez) Judge.
Date of hearing: 19.11.2025. Petitioner by: M/s Muhammad Ali Siddiqui, Nauman Aftab and Fatima Safeer, Advocates.
Respondents by: Mr. Tariq Murtaza Khan Malezai, Advocate alongwith Muhammad Iqbal, Chief Officer Municipal Committee, Multan. Mr. Masroor Haider Usman, Additional Advocate-General, Punjab.
Syed Anjum Kamal Zaidi
VERSUS
Government of the Punjab, through Secretary Local Government and Community Development, Lahore and 4 others.
Law: Punjab Land Use (Classification, Reclassification and Redevelopment) Rules, 2009
Section: 60,67(1)-(5)
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section:
Case Summary
Petitioners: Multiple individuals seeking exemption from payment of conversion/commercialization fee
Respondent: City District Government / Local Government authority
Court: Lahore High Court
Judges: Asim Hafeez, Abid Hussain Chattha
Date: 23 December 2025
Petitions: W.P. Nos. 12198 & 12467 of 2025 (heard jointly)
Facts:
- Petitioners own properties abutting roads listed in List-A under Notification No. DO(SP&C)/MN/539 dated 30.06.2011.
- Notification, issued under Rule 65(2) of Punjab Land Use (Classification, Reclassification & Redevelopment) Rules 2009, allowed commercial use of properties facing List-A roads.
- Petitioners claimed no conversion fee was payable because the notification automatically permitted commercial use (“deemed conversionâ€), effectively creating vested rights.
- Rules 2009 were later replaced by Rules 2020, which maintained similar provisions regarding conversion fee.
- Respondent argued that notification alone does not exempt property owners from paying conversion fee, which is a condition precedent under Rule 67 of Rules 2009.
Petitioners’ Argument: