Imran Khan. PHOTO: FILE
Imran Khan and 27 other people who had bought flats in the under-construction building on the One Constitution Avenue meant for a hotel has approached the court through Barrister Farogh Naseem.
A single bench of the IHC comprising Justice Athar Minallah had on March 3 issued a verdict upholding the Capital Development Authority (CDA)’s July 2016 decision of terminating the lease for the building and sealing it for violating the terms of its lease.
One Constitution Avenue case: Flats built, sold were illegal
In the petition, Naseem has raised several points against the IHC judgment. He has also claimed that “the objective of the authority is to cancel the lease, which has been done malafidely at the behest of certain quarters, and to grant the same [lease] to their blue-eyed ones.”
Imran is among the 240 people, who had bought flats in the building meant for the Grand Hayatt hotel.
Naseem submitted that if the Master Plan of the capital strictly implemented, then most of the developments which have taken place in the city in recent years would have to be reversed. In this regard, he pointed how Ninth Avenue and Sector E-11 were not part of the Master Plan and neither were Serena Hotel or the Centaurus Mall.
“Why would the authority [CDA] produce relevant facts or documents confirming the amendment of scheme or Master Plan,” he stated in the petition.
On page 28 of the IHC judgment, Naseem said that CDA said that the plot of land on which the building was being built was part of Zone IV under the Zoning Regulations.
“This is incorrect,” he said, adding that the plot falls in Zone III of the city as per the regulations.
“On this ground alone the judgment is liable to be set aside,” he contended, adding that Justice Minallah had decided the case beyond the pleadings of the parties concerned.
Further, Naseem said that there was no evidence to show where any illegality had been committed by the builder or if the project had been built in contravention to the building regulations and without requisite permissions from the CDA.
One Constitution Avenue case: Govt likely to keep control of building, for now
“Authority [CDA] is now taking this stance simply to usurp a valuable project from builder [BNP Group],” he said.
The builder, Naseem contended, had been made to suffer due to purported irregularities by CDA.
Noting that CDA could remove the builder, BNP (Pvt) Ltd and substitute it with another entity as a lessee, Naseem said that the rights of the allottees would remain intact.
Moreover, the lawyer pointed out how arguments had been presented before the single bench that the builder was committed to building a third tower for the building which would be meant to house a hotel. He said that the builder was even ready to provide a guarantee of up to a billion rupees.
“Therefore, it cannot be inferred that a hotel was not being built,” he argued.
Interestingly, he maintained that the CDA Ordinance 1960 does not permit cancellation of the lease. Further, once rights of allottees are created, the main lease cannot be cancelled.
Published in The Express Tribune, April 9th, 2017.
COMMENTS (2)
Comments are moderated and generally will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive.
For more information, please see our Comments FAQ