DHA lawyer Abid S. Zuberi informed the court that the area was not meant for amenity purposes. PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE
KARACHI: Until the Sindh High Court (SHC) finally rules whether or not the 43 acres land is exclusively for amenity purposes, the private builders have been allowed to continue with the construction of the two residential and commercial projects - Creek Terraces and Creek View - at their "own risk and cost" in Phase VIII of DHA.
A single bench, headed by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, granted the temporary permission till November 12 by modifying its previous order through which the builder was specifically asked to stop construction. A DHA resident, Zahidullah Khan, had taken the DHA, Creek Developers, BF Property and Construction, and AKD Capital to court.
"The original master plan, issued by DHA, shows amenity plots allocated for a park, schools, sewerage treatment plant and a graveyard," the petitioner argued. The plaintiff's lawyer, Barrister Salahuddin Ahmed, argued that the amenity plot cannot be converted into residential or commercial property.
DHA's stance
DHA lawyer Abid S. Zuberi informed the court that the area was not meant for amenity purposes. The authority reiterated that the projects were part of the Creek City project, which spreads over 90 acres.
Builder's view
Creek Developers said that it had launched the project on July 12, 2003, while the construction work was initiated in 2009. It requested the court modify its previous restraining order and allow it to raise constructions at its own risk and cost, assuring that no third party interest would be created till the disposal of the case.
Published in The Express Tribune, October 10th, 2013.
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
Bribery always wins.
It is sad that the Sindh High Court has fallen for an old tactic used by the builder mafia. Once the building project is complete the builder will come up with the plea that he has spent millions and will be ruined if the project, even if illegal, is to be demolished. He will plead fro mercy and then the Court will ask the petitioner to let the building stand and will impose a fine on the builder and compound the offense. And this will go on. It was the Bombay High Court that took a bold step and got a building that was built after an undertaking demolished. Unless our courts are bold enough we will continue seeing illegal structures on our skyline.