Construction of commercial building on a residential plot in violation of the Cantonment Housing Scheme's master plan-

 Citation Name  : 2018  SCMR  76     SUPREME-COURT
  Side Appellant : Mst. YAWAR AZHAR WAHEED (DECEASED)
  Side Opponent : KHALID HUSSAIN
     
 
S. 179---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54---Construction of commercial building on a residential plot in violation of the Cantonment Housing Scheme's master plan---Subject plot was initially allotted to person "M" with a condition mentioned in the allotment letter that it shall be used only for residential purpose and no other purpose---Person "M" sold the plot to the defendant, but in the registered sale deed, the condition of residential purpose was deleted---Subsequently defendant planned erection of a commercial building/school on the subject plot---Plaintiffs who were residents of the Cantonment area where the subject plot was situated filed a suit for permanent injunction against the defendant to prevent construction of the school---Said suit was decreed by the High Court; held, that the Cantonment Board approved the erection of new building for commercial purposes i.e. to run a school, by ignoring the initial condition imposed by itself that the plot shall not be used for any other purpose except a residential house---Once the master plan of a Cantonment Housing Scheme was notified and it was accepted by the purchaser of the plot and the Cantonment Board accepted the offer of purchaser and allotted the plot, thereafter, the Board was left with no authority to bring changes in the master plan, unilaterally because a binding contract came into existence---Suit filed by plaintiffs against the construction of school on the subject plot was fully justified because they were the residents of the same area, and if the school building was put into operation, it would create various problems for the area, including parking, pollution, sanitation and security problems---Supreme Court observed that the Cantonment Board through its reply illegally supported the cause of the defendant, which showed that it was bent upon to violate the law for monetary gains and to generate funds through illegal means---Supreme Court directed that copy of present judgment should be sent to the Attorney General and Secretary defence who shall ensure that all the private educational institutions i.e. schools, colleges, etc. constructed in the Cantonments and all commercial buildings erected in residential areas of Cantonments throughout the country shall be removed gradually, having been constructed in violation of the law and rules as well as bylaws and the master plan and their original shape should be restored---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

 
 
  
 
     
             
             
  Citation Name  : 2018  PLD  845     SUPREME-COURT
  Side Appellant : ALI ANWAR GOPANG
  Side Opponent : JUSTICE SHAUKAT AZIZ SIDDIQUI, JUDGE, ISLAMABAD HIGH COURT
     
 
Para. 13---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 4, 10A, 14, 25 & 209---Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry, 2005, Vires of---Proceedings against a Judge of the High Court before the Supreme Judicial Council---Scope---Application seeking proceedings in open court---Plea of applicant/Judge of the High Court that holding in-camera proceedings in secret in terms of para. 13 of Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry, 2005 was violative of the Fundamental Rights guaranteed to him under Arts. 4, 10A, 14 & 25 of the Constitution, therefore, para.13 should be declared to be ultra vires the Constitution---Validity---Supreme Judicial Council ("Council") was not a court---Proceedings before the Council did not determine the civil rights or criminal liabilities of a Judge against whom the proceedings were being conducted, therefore, the request for an open trial of the proceedings on the touchstone of Arts. 4, 10-A, 14 & 25 of the Constitution was not well founded---Furthermore, show cause notice was issued to the applicant along with the information and material against him; he had filed his reply thereto; the statement of allegations had been served upon him and the Attorney General had been required to conduct the reference---For the purposes of establishing the allegations contained in the complaint the affidavits of the witnesses who intended to depose in support of the complainant were to be filed through the Attorney General---Applicant was entitled to receive an advance copy of the affidavits, and the right to cross-examine the witnesses---All the documentary material brought on the record during the course of inquiry was also going to be delivered to the applicant, who would have the right to controvert such material---Applicant was also be entitled to produce oral and documentary material in support of his defence ---Where the assistance of the Supreme Judicial Council was required, the same would be duly provided to the applicant---All said steps conformed to the utmost rules of fairness in proceedings, natural justice, transparency and due process of law---Paragraph 13 of the Supreme Judicial Council Procedure of Inquiry, 2005 was not ultra vires the Constitution, nor the proceedings conducted in the present manner would deny the applicant the right to defend himself in a robust and meaningful manner---Application was accordingly dismissed.