Mall Square on Zamzama: Fight over generator morphs into 3,600 sq yd case
The first petition was filed by JS Bank Limited that decided to go to court against the Cantonment Board Clifton and Defence Housing Authority (DHA) for telling it to remove a 40-KVA electricity generator from the pavement outside the branch. The bank maintained that while other establishments were allowed to keep similar equipment, the bank was told to remove its generator, which was “discriminatory”.
Earlier on, the bench of the Sindh High Court had called for comments and appointed a nazir [custodian] to independently investigate the claim. For its part, the Clifton Cantonment Board said that since the bank had failed to obtain an NoC from the owner, his permission was withdrawn. The bank was asked to remove the generator immediately as it was installed at a place reserved for car parking.
DHA’s lawyer also defended the action and said that, according to bylaws 3510, the installation of such equipment is prohibited and that DHA allows generators to be placed on rooftops if the structure of a building is strong enough.
The SHC nazir told the court that when he visited the branch, he found out that other shop owners have installed five large generators. Some of the other shopkeepers in the mall and its adjoining areas were also using mobile generators that were placed in front of their shops or business establishments.
The division bench comprising justices Musheer Alam and Syed Zakir Hussain disposed of this petition and directed the respondents to take action against all the generators fixed or installed in any of the amenity areas.
But this was not the end of it. The lawyer for JS Bank brought up land that DHA gave to the builder of the mall. The lawyer relied on the very comments filed by the cantonment board and DHA to argue that it appeared that 8,000 square yards was leased out to the mall’s developer in 1987. Lessees were required to use only 70 per cent for the construction of covered area while the remaining 30 per cent was to be used for amenities, such as internal roads, parking lots, sidewalks and parks.
The bank showed the court that instead of giving the builder 8,000 square yards, DHA gave him a total area of 11,600 square yards or an excess of 3,600 sq yards. The bank’s lawyer claimed that this shows that DHA has unlawfully favoured the builder and given him land with high property value.
The bench took notice of this. In light of DHA’s comments, the judges decided to treat the land issue as a separate new petition to examine whether any area given to the mall developer was in excess of the leased area and if so, why was the excess area not removed or action taken in accordance with the law? The bench then ordered the office of the SHC to issue notices to the owner of Mall Square.
Published in The Express Tribune, January 28th, 2011.
COMMENTS
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ