HABIB ALWAHAB ALKHAIRI and others vs COMMISSIONER, RAWALPINDI
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional petition by the Lahore High Court, which had challenged the sanctioning of commercial and industrial building plans on residential plots in Rawalpindi. The petitioners, who were tenants in possession of shops affected by the construction of an ice factory, sought to restrain the respondents from sanctioning such plans, requested the acquisition of land for public gardens, and sought a directive for the publication of the Master Plan and Zoning Regulations. The High Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioners lacked locus standi and were not aggrieved persons. Upon review, the Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the issues raised—specifically regarding the rights of citizens to challenge commercial construction in residential areas and the standing of residents to file such petitions—were matters of significant public importance requiring authoritative settlement. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to examine the legal standing of the petitioners and the broader implications of the construction activities in the specified residential schemes.
- Does a resident of a locality have the locus standi to challenge the sanctioning of commercial or industrial building plans on residential plots?
- Are tenants in possession of property affected by a new construction plan considered 'aggrieved persons' for the purpose of filing a constitutional petition?
ORDER
1. ' USMAN ALI SHAH, J.--This petition for leave to appeal has been filed by Habibul Wahab Alkhairi and two other petitioners, which is directed against the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated 10-7-1988, passed in Writ Petition No,212 of 1988.
2. ' The background of the case in nutshell is that Ch. Shah Muhammad petitioner No,2 and Abdul Qayyum petitioner No,3 were the tenants in possession of Shops Nos.26 and 27 in Plot No,W/571, Ratta Road, Rawalpindi, under respondents Nos.4 to 6. The said respondents got sanctioned on 29- 12-1983, a construction plan of an Ice Factory from Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi, in place of the above said shops. Against the said sanction petitioners Nos.2 and 3 filed appeal before the Commissioner Rawalpindi Division, Rawalpindi which was dismissed vide order, dated 11-4-1984.
3. Thereafter the said petitioners filed Writ Petition No,248 of 1984 against the order of the Commissioner Rawalpindi. During the pendency of the writ petition the Commissioner reviewed his order and recalled it on 18-7-1984. The writ petition was disposed of as such. On the other hand Respondents Nos. 4-6 challenged the said review order dated 18-7-1984 of the Commissioner through a Writ Petition No,445/84 which was admitted to regular hearing vide order 19-3-1988 as a result the impugned order dated 18-7-1984 was suspended meanwhile.
4. ' Respondents Nos.7 to 11 also intended to construct some shops in their Plots Nos.232 and 233 Saidpur Road, Rawalpindi and got sanctioned the site plan of the shops from the respondent No,3 which was challenged by one Muhammad Shafique Sethi through a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge which was dismissed vide order dated 6-12-1987. His appeal before the learned Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi also failed, vide order dated 13-4-1988. Subsequently, the said Muhammad Shafique filed Civil Revision No,118-D of 1988 in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi which is still pending.
5. ' The petitioners filed Constitutional Petition No,212 of 1988 in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi praying that the plan already sanctioned in favour of respondents Nos.4 to 11 be cancelled; the respondents should be restrained from sanctioning plan for commercial and industrial building construction on residential plots in the Satellite Town Saidpur Scheme and Asghar Mall Scheme etc; the land around Leih Nala be acquired for garden purposes and the respondents Nos.1 and 2 be directed to publish Master Plan alongwith Zoning Regulation for the general public information. The learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, who heard the writ petition did not accept the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners and dismissed the writ petition in limine, vide impugned judgment. Hence; this petition for leave to appeal.
6. ' The learned counsel for the petitioners contended in support of this petition that the learned High Court has erred in holding that the petitioners are not aggrieved persons and have no locus standi to file the petition. He urged that the petitioners have filed the suit restraining the respondents from the construction of Ice Factory upon the site of their shops of which they are tenants in possession and also situated in the residential area within the limits of Municipal Corporation, Rawalpindi. The petitioners being citizens of Pakistan and residents of the locality have the constitutional right to file the petition. In our opinion the points in this petition and the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners are of public importance which need authoritative settlement by this Court. We, therefore, grant leave to appeal and allow the petition. Security is Rs,5,000.
7. ' The appeal will be heard very early on the present record with the direction to all the parties to file necessary documents, if any. No interim relief at this stage. To be heard with appeal in C.P. No,300- K of 1987 in which leave has already been granted on 11-1-1989.
8. ' Leave to .