Zafar All Khan and others Versus Government of the Punjab and others

ORDER

MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- Through this writ petition, the petitioner has sought the following prayers:-

Respondents be restrained permanently from revising the design of the Flyover structure as also Transformer structure so as to benefit. The property of respondent Saif-UI-Malook at the expense of the property of the petitioners and at the expense of the public exchequer, as well.

2.The main thrust of the petitioner has been on the prayer clause IV. It is contended that the shifting of Flyover structure and Transformer structure after laying off the foundation work amounts to causing colossal loss to the public exchequer and it also affects the rights of the petitioner and this entire exercise is being carried out to safe the property of Saif-ul-Malook, MPA.

3.Report and parawise comments in compliance of the order of this Court have been filed by the respondents wherein they have controverted all the facts and categorically denied any extraneous consideration in shifting of this pedestrian bridge from its present place. The reason ascribed to its shifting is that it was .Falling in front of street near Madni Mosque on river side. It has also been stated that a number of residents of the area complained against the blockade of street at that location. Keeping in view this problem, the pedestrian bridge was shifted 10-M away from street towards Mosque where the grave is located. During the course of proceedings, cost of comparison was also summoned which was submitted as follows:-

Appr. Cost Rs. 4.00 million.

* Acquisition of land Appr. Cost Rs. 8.40 million.

* Construction cost of additional approach road upto the street.Appr. Cost Rs. 1.10 million. * Removal of home occupied by Imam Nil

* Expected resistance from the residents.

Rs. 13.50 million

Option-2. To shift the pedestrian bridge 10-M away from the street towards Mosque: There is a grave on the proposed location of bridge which is required to be shifted. Following are the implications of the said option:

* Reconstruction cost of

Foundation Appr. Cost Rs. 0.10 million * Removal Of home occupied by Imam Nil

Rs. 0.11 million

4.The comparative analysis suggested that the shifting of this pedestrian bridge from the present place is in the public interest. Even if the petitioner is likely to be affected from such shift in plan, an individual's concern cannot be given precedence over the broad-based interest of public-at- large.

It has also been pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondents that the construction can only be raised 40-Feet away from the road as per by-laws of the respondents. In this way, there is no likelihood that the writ petitioner will suffer due to construction of this pedestrian bridge. Even otherwise, the averments of the writ petition raised disputed questions of fact which cannot be resolved through this Constitution petition. So far as the question of loss to public exchequer is concerned, though the respondents have already raised the foundations yet the loss of structure hitherto erected is negligible taking into account the cost to be incurred on the construction of subject pedestrian bridge at the present place - according to the cost comparison mentioned ibid.

5.It has also been brought to the notice of this Court by the learned counsel for the respondents that the _ dispute qua ownership and compensation is already sub judice before the learned Civil Judge in the form of suit filed by the petitioner himself, so, no relief in this behalf can be granted by this Court.

6.The given facts and circumstances render this petition meritless, thus warranting no interference by way of Constitutional jurisdiction and the same is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.