KARACHI (HRNW): The Sindh High Court (SHC) has dismissed two separate petitions challenging the regularization of land and the subsequent approval for a multi-story building in the Gulshan-e-Iqbal area. Declaring the petitions “not maintainable,” the court ruled that complex disputes involving land ownership and lease validity fall outside its constitutional jurisdiction and should be pursued in a civil court.
Arguments and Legal Contention
During the proceedings, both parties presented conflicting accounts regarding the land’s status and its designated use:
-
Petitioner’s Stand: The counsel for the petitioners argued that the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) had originally earmarked this land for a petrol pump under the Master Plan. They contended that granting permission for a high-rise building on this specific plot was illegal and a violation of urban planning regulations.
-
Government’s Response: The government’s counsel countered that the allotment of this land was finalized in 1963, predating the formal KDA scheme for the area. Furthermore, they argued that the petitioners lacked the legal standing (locus standi) to intervene, as they were not directly affected parties.
-
SBCA’s Position: The court noted that, on the surface, the construction plan approved by the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) appeared to comply with all existing legal requirements and building codes.
The Court’s Verdict and Observations
The bench dismissed the petitions while outlining several key legal principles:
-
Jurisdictional Limits: The court observed that the core of the dispute involves the determination of land ownership, lease validity, and the jurisdiction of various institutions. These are matters of a “civil nature” that require a detailed examination of evidence, which a constitutional court cannot perform.
-
Civil Court as the Proper Forum: The SHC emphasized that a constitutional court is not an alternative forum for a civil court. Issues such as the cancellation of a registered lease must be settled through a civil suit.
-
Lack of Evidence: The court highlighted that the petitioners failed to provide concrete evidence of any illegal acts. It also noted that no construction has actually commenced on the site yet.
-
Prerequisite of Ownership: The bench ruled that the question of ownership must be resolved first before the legality of the construction plan can be effectively challenged.
The petitioners were advised to approach the relevant civil court to settle the underlying property dispute.
Support Independent Journalism: At HRNW, we provide authoritative coverage of judicial rulings and urban development issues affecting our city. Your support empowers our mission of factual and impactful reporting. Support us today at hrnw.com/support-us.
