Case Details

Citation(s)
1995 SLG 990 1995 SLD 990 1995 PLD 579
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 10326 of 1994, heard on 25th May, 1995.
BEFOMLA. IJAZ NISAR, ACTG. CJ
Munir Ahmad Bhatti for Petitioners. M. Arif Chaudhry, Legal Advisor, L.DA. for
Respondents. Saif-ud-Din Chughtai for
Respondent

Dr. Miss HAJIRA ABDULLAH and 3 others

VS

Lahore DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, Lahore through Director-General and 2 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Lahore Development Authority Act (XXX of 1975)--- ----S. 45---Lahore Development Authority Building Regulations, 1984, Reglas. 96(4) & 98---Declaration of residential plot as commercial by Authority---­Validity---Specified areas mentioned in Regln.96(4), Lahore Development Authority Building Regulations, 1984, containing those properties abutting on specified roads could be subjected to change of use from "residential" to "special commercial" subject to prior approval of Director-General of Authority, which could be granted by him only on production of "No-Objection Certificate" from owners of adjoining properties and on payment of such fee as may be prescribed by it from time to time---Assertion of petitioners themselves indicated that disputed property of respondent abuts on that road, which was not mentioned in said Regulation, therefore, condition of production of "No­Objection Certificate" from owners of adjoining properties would not be applicable thereto---Regulation 98, Lahore Development Authority Building Regulations, 1984, permits Director-General of Authority to allow relaxation of Building Regulations in special cases---Relaxation in question, was allowed by Chief Minister on the recommendation of Director-General of Authority subject to specified conditions, which were completely within the four corners of Building Regulations and if petitioners felt that building plan submitted by owner of plot in question, affected their privacy they could raise objection before Authority at the time of sanctioning of building plan. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of ---Essentials--- Constitutional jurisdiction should always be exercised in aid of justice---Person invoking discretionary jurisdiction was required to satisfy the Court that order sought to be set aside had occasioned some injustice to him---Petitioners having failed to show any illegality on part of respondent (Authority) in performing its functions---No case was made out for interference by High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. JUDGMENT Briefly stated the relevant facts are that Dr. Miss Hajira Abdullah and Dr. Miss…
🔒
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