Case Details

Citation(s)
1998 SLG 1188 1998 SLD 1188 1998 PLD 11
Sindh High Court
Suit N o.869 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 4375and 4611 of 1997 decided on 18th August, 1997. Dates ofhearing: 31st July and 1st August, 1997
MUSHTAQ AHMAD MEMON, JUSTICE
Faisal Arab for Plaintiffs.Zahida Naqvi for.Defendants Nos. 1 to 3.Abdul Qadir Memon holding brief for Dasti Muhammad Ibrahim for Defendant No. 5.Abul Inam for Defendant No.6.

YARNTEX TRADING COMPANY AND others--PlaintiffSVSCHIEF CONTROLLER OF BUILDINGS AND others-----Defendants

Law:

Section:

(a) Karachi Development Authority Order (5 of 1957)--- ----Art. 52-A---Housing Scheme---Deviation from planned scheme---Master layout plan not showing internal bifurcation and earmarking of plot in question within commercial area---Use of such plot for commercial purpose ---Validity--All public functionaries were to ensure implementation of notified scheme without change---In absence of positive evidence provisions of Art.52-A, Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957 could not be pressed into service nor could their strict compliance be asserted for the reason that master layout plan did not show internal bifurcation and earmarking of plots within commercial area---Every one acquiring property within relevant commercial area on basis of scheme approved by Karachi Development Authority, would, thus, know in advance that plots therein would be used for commercial purpose--Plaintiffs, therefore, having sufficient notice could not object to use of plot in question, for commercial purpose. Abdul Razak v. Karachi Building Control Authority and others PLD 1994 SC 512; Multiline Associates v. Ardeshir Cowasjee and 2 others PLD 1995 SC 423 and Dr. Miss Hajira Abdullah and others v. Lahore Development Authority, Lahore and others PLD 1997 Lah. 464 ref. (b) Karachi Development Authority Order (5 of 1957)--- ----Art. 52-A---Plot reserved in commercial area for construction of cinema--Change of user from cinema to commercial complex---Effect---Cinema business being commercial activity, tentatively speaking change of user from cinema to commercial complex would not amount to modification of nature of plot in question, cimena business having not been included in recognised amenity purposes stated in Building Regulations framed by Karachi Building Control Authority. Ballentine's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edn p.222 and Concise Oxford Dictionary. 8th Edn., p.227 ref. (c) Karachi Development Authority Order (5 of 1957 ),. ----Art. 52-A---Modification in notified scheme---Validity---Law would not prohibit modification of notified scheme altogether---Alterations in scheme could be made for the good of the people at large---Minor changes and alterations, which would not change nature ofโ€ฆ
๐Ÿ”’
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 482