IHC rejects buyers' claims in building dispute

Upholds CDA lease cancellation in One Constitution Avenue case

ISLAMABAD:

The Islamabad High Court (IHC) has refused to recognize the ownership rights of people who purchased flats at the One Constitution Avenue building, observing that they must "sink or sail" with the petitioner BNP company.

Last week, the IHC endorsed the Capital Development Authority's (CDA) decision to cancel the lease agreement for the One Constitution Avenue building. On Monday, it issued a 32-page detailed verdict authored by IHC Chief Justice Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar.

The court noted that in the writ petitions, third parties, claiming interest based on sub-leases executed by the petitioner—the BNP company—argued they were bona fide purchasers for value without notice.

This argument, the court said, is not sustainable under the jurisdiction of Article 199 of the Constitution because it requires evidence, and the sub-lessees may pursue the matter before a court of competent jurisdiction.

"The sub-lessees also have a remedy against BNP, which they may pursue before the competent court. This court, however, expects the CDA and the third parties to make earnest efforts to arrive at a mutually agreeable arrangement."

It said the property in question was auctioned in 2005 for a total bid of Rs4.882 billion, and a lease deed was executed on July 28, 2005.

From the outset, the project was marked by building plan violations, including exceeding the approved height and changing the land use from a hotel to a residential-cum-commercial complex.

These violations led to the first cancellation of the lease in 2016, an action that was subsequently upheld by the IHC through a detailed judgment in March 2017.

Later, the petitioner approached the Supreme Court, which set aside the IHC judgment and conditionally restored the lease agreement on January 9, 2019. The IHC noted that the bench led by former chief justice Mian Saqib Nisar issued this order just one day before the top judge's retirement.

It observed that the case history revealed a pattern of non-compliance and shifting narratives spanning nearly two decades on the part of the petitioner company.

"The project, originally envisioned as a luxury five-star hotel, became a focal point of controversy after the petitioner converted a significant portion of it into luxury residential apartments without the requisite legal authorization.

"The SC's intervention, via the order dated January 9, 2019, addresses the legal and constitutional consequences of the petitioner's failure to honour the 'lifeline' granted by the highest court."