Fighting for amenity: Petitioner wins plea against DHA’s commercialisation
Court allows plea on ‘unlawful conversion’ of amenity plot in Zamzama.
Court allows plea on ‘unlawful conversion’ of amenity plot in Zamzama. PHOTO: EXPRESS/FILE
KARACHI:
The Defence Housing Authority (DHA) has come under fire from its residents for giving away amenity plots for commercial projects. One such case was decided by the Sindh High Court in favour of the petitioner on Wednesday, who claimed that 3,600 square yards of an amenity land was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the law.
The bench, comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Shaukat Ali Memon, finally allowed the petition against the commercial use of the amenity land which was originally earmarked for a public park in Zamzama.
Justice Faisal Arab, who headed the bench, passed the order while deciding a petition filed in 2011 against the commercial use of the land meant for amenity purposes. Barrister Waleed Khanzada had taken the defence ministry, Clifton Cantonment Board, DHA and the M/s Mall Developers to the court. SHC had granted a stay against the conversion of the status of the land in April 2011 but the order was passed on Wednesday.
Khanzada, a resident of Zamzama, had gone to the court to seek enforcement of the fundamental rights of citizens protected under Articles 4, 9 and 26 of the Constitution. He had pleaded to the court to declare the conversion of the 3,600 square yards land from amenity to commercial, for the construction of a cinema, bowling alley and gaming zones, as illegal.
He told the judges that the DHA and the M/s Mall Developers had signed off on an agreement on July 17, 1987 to construct commercial flats on the plot, known as Zam-I. The plot is spread across 8,000 square yards.
According to clause 2 of the agreement, Khanzada pointed out that the builder was supposed to raise constructions as part of its project, Mall Square, over 70 per cent of the land while the rest of the land would be used for amenity purposes, such as roads and public parks, for the residents of the flats.
The petitioner submitted that the builder failed to leave 30 per cent mandatory space for amenity purposes and subsequently, the DHA made an additional allotment of 3,600 square yards, reserved for the DHA Park, to the builder in sheer violation of the building laws. “The change of the amenity land for commercial use is unlawful,” he claimed.
He had pleaded to the court to declare allotment of the excessive 3,600 square yards to the builder by the DHA as illegal. The court was also requested to restrain the commercial constructions on the park’s land.
The matter which has been going back and forth for a long time was heard exclusively at length by the two judges on Thursday.
After hearing arguments from the parties, the bench allowed the petition. A detailed judgment, containing reasons, will be announced later.
DHA has also been asked in another case to submit the original records relating to lease of the land in Phase-VIII, where it has launched two major residential and commercial projects. The petitioner has alleged that DHA’s Creek Terraces and Creek View were being constructed on a land which was originally an amenity plot.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 5th, 2013.
The Defence Housing Authority (DHA) has come under fire from its residents for giving away amenity plots for commercial projects. One such case was decided by the Sindh High Court in favour of the petitioner on Wednesday, who claimed that 3,600 square yards of an amenity land was being used for commercial purposes in violation of the law.
The bench, comprising Justice Faisal Arab and Justice Shaukat Ali Memon, finally allowed the petition against the commercial use of the amenity land which was originally earmarked for a public park in Zamzama.
Justice Faisal Arab, who headed the bench, passed the order while deciding a petition filed in 2011 against the commercial use of the land meant for amenity purposes. Barrister Waleed Khanzada had taken the defence ministry, Clifton Cantonment Board, DHA and the M/s Mall Developers to the court. SHC had granted a stay against the conversion of the status of the land in April 2011 but the order was passed on Wednesday.
Khanzada, a resident of Zamzama, had gone to the court to seek enforcement of the fundamental rights of citizens protected under Articles 4, 9 and 26 of the Constitution. He had pleaded to the court to declare the conversion of the 3,600 square yards land from amenity to commercial, for the construction of a cinema, bowling alley and gaming zones, as illegal.
He told the judges that the DHA and the M/s Mall Developers had signed off on an agreement on July 17, 1987 to construct commercial flats on the plot, known as Zam-I. The plot is spread across 8,000 square yards.
According to clause 2 of the agreement, Khanzada pointed out that the builder was supposed to raise constructions as part of its project, Mall Square, over 70 per cent of the land while the rest of the land would be used for amenity purposes, such as roads and public parks, for the residents of the flats.
The petitioner submitted that the builder failed to leave 30 per cent mandatory space for amenity purposes and subsequently, the DHA made an additional allotment of 3,600 square yards, reserved for the DHA Park, to the builder in sheer violation of the building laws. “The change of the amenity land for commercial use is unlawful,” he claimed.
He had pleaded to the court to declare allotment of the excessive 3,600 square yards to the builder by the DHA as illegal. The court was also requested to restrain the commercial constructions on the park’s land.
The matter which has been going back and forth for a long time was heard exclusively at length by the two judges on Thursday.
After hearing arguments from the parties, the bench allowed the petition. A detailed judgment, containing reasons, will be announced later.
DHA has also been asked in another case to submit the original records relating to lease of the land in Phase-VIII, where it has launched two major residential and commercial projects. The petitioner has alleged that DHA’s Creek Terraces and Creek View were being constructed on a land which was originally an amenity plot.
Published in The Express Tribune, December 5th, 2013.