Summary: of 2021 – Chaudhary Asad Pervaiz & another v. Federation of Pakistan & others, following your prescribed format: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Arts. 4, 9, 10-A, 23 & 24 Fundamental rights—Illegal land acquisition—Petitioners challenged the issuance of Notification under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, by the Land Acquisition Collector (Respondent No.5) for acquisition of their land in Islamabad for construction of a road on behalf of Defence Housing Authority (DHA)—Petitioners alleged lack of lawful authority, malafide intention, violation of constitutional rights, and misuse of the Land Acquisition Act to further DHA’s joint venture with private entities—Held, State functionaries were under legal obligation to act fairly and within statutory limits—Violation of “due process” under Art. 10-A and infringement of property rights under Arts. 23 & 24 established—Impugned Notification declared without legal effect and quashed. Disposition: Petition allowed. Cited Case: Zahid Iqbal v. Hafiz Muhammad Adnan 2016 SCMR 430 (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ----S.4 & S.3(c); Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, R.3 Competence of Land Acquisition Collector—Petitioners alleged Notification under S.4 was coram non judice as Respondent No.5 lacked lawful authority—Held, under S.3(c) and R.3, only District Collector or officer appointed by competent authority may issue such Notification—Notification dated 15.08.2018 empowered ADC (Revenue), Islamabad, as Land Acquisition Collector—Therefore, the impugned Notification was issued by a duly authorized officer—However, the acquisition request itself was invalid. (c) Defence Housing Authority Act, 2013 (DHA Act) ----Ss. 3, 4, 5, 6(2)(j), 13 & 21 Legal incompetence of DHA to initiate land acquisition—Held, under S.6(2)(j), only DHA’s Executive Board may apply for acquisition of land—Request in the present case was made by DHA’s Legal Advisor and not by the Executive Board—No power of delegation to legal advisor proved—Violation of mandatory procedure rendered the process null and void—DHA must follow proper procedure if it wishes to initiate fresh acquisition. (d) Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 ----Ss. 11 & 12 Acquisition in Islamabad Capital Territory—Scope of CDA vis-à-vis Land Acquisition Act—Petitioners argued that acquisition required prior approval of CDA and that only CDA could acquire land under its Ordinance—Held, as per precedent of Supreme Court in Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa 2021 SCMR 201, both Land Acquisition Act, 1894 and CDA Ordinance operate in parallel and do not override each other—However, any planning or development must align with CDA’s Master Plan and obtain necessary NOC. Cited Case: Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa 2021 SCMR 201 (e) Public Purpose—Interpretation ----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 24(2); Black’s Law Dictionary Meaning and scope of “public purpose”—Petitioners alleged that land was being acquired to regularize DHA’s commercial joint venture with private developers and not for public use—Held, acquisition must meet three constitutional conditions: public purpose, legal authority, and compensation—Although “public purpose” may include roads and housing, in present case purpose was found to be commercial regularization and not public welfare—Acquisition thus failed the test of public purpose.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 4, 9, 10-A, 23, 24 & 199 Land acquisition—Challenge to notification under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894—Maintainability—Fundamental rights—Petitioner, a legal heir in possession of residential land, assailed the notification dated 30.03.2021 issued under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 by the Land Acquisition Collector for acquisition of land in Village Sihala, ICT for DHA Expressway—Petitioner alleged that the acquisition was not for public purpose, lacked legal basis, and was in violation of constitutional rights under Arts. 4, 9, 10-A, 23 & 24—Held, DHA’s application for acquisition was not submitted by its Executive Board as required under S.6(2)(j) of the DHA Act, 2013—Legal Advisor lacked lawful authority to initiate such proceedings—Violation of due process rendered the entire proceedings void ab initio—Petition allowed and impugned notification declared unlawful. Cited Case: Zahid Iqbal v. Hafiz Muhammad Adnan 2016 SCMR 430 (b) Land Acquisition Act, 1894: ----S. 4, S. 3(c); Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, R. 3 Jurisdiction to issue notification—Competence of officer—Collector of District defined—Held, under S.3(c) of the Land Acquisition Act read with R.3 of the Land Acquisition Rules, only a duly appointed Collector by the Board of Revenue or Commissioner is authorized to issue notification under S.4—Notification dated 15.08.2018 empowered Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue), ICT as Land Acquisition Collector—Thus, issuance of impugned notification by Respondent No.5 was legally competent. (c) Defence Housing Authority Act, 2013 (Act XII of 2013): ----Ss. 3(4), 6(2)(j), 13, 21 Procedure for land acquisition—Non-compliance with statutory mandate—Held, under S.6(2)(j) of the DHA Act, only the Executive Board may apply for acquisition of land—No authority exists for delegation to Legal Advisor—Acquisition request initiated by DHA’s Legal Advisor without Executive Board approval was ultra vires—Such procedural illegality invalidates the subsequent land acquisition process—Where law prescribes a mode, it must be strictly followed—Court cannot read into statute what is not there. (d) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Art. 24(2); Public purpose—Meaning and scope Test for determining public purpose in compulsory land acquisition—Held, “public purpose” includes housing, road construction, and welfare schemes benefiting a segment of society—Construction of expressway qualified as public purpose—However, Court observed that the land acquisition process was vitiated due to procedural defects, including lack of proper authorization by DHA—Public purpose alone cannot cure defects in legal process. Cited Case: Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa 2021 SCMR 201 (e) CDA Ordinance, 1960 & Zoning Regulations, 1992: **----S. 11, S. 12; Development control and master planning—Overlap with Land Acquisition Act—Held, CDA Ordinance and Land Acquisition Act operate concurrently in ICT—DHA must adhere to CDA’s Master Plan when acquiring or developing land—Court noted that approval of CDA is required where changes to roads or access are proposed—Absence of prior NOC from CDA does not per se invalidate acquisition, but underscores need for coordination between regulatory regimes. Cited Case: Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence v. Province of Punjab ----Disposition: Writ petition allowed—Impugned notification dated 30.03.2021 issued under S.4 of Land Acquisition Act quashed for being ultra vires and initiated without lawful authority—DHA directed that if land acquisition is still desired, fresh proceedings may be initiated through proper legal channel under DHA Act. "Resident of village Sihala impugns modification U/s 4 by land Acquisition collector for acquisition of land for DHA."

Summary: The petitioners, affected by land acquisition by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) under Compensation Awards from 1980 to 1985 and subsequent Review Orders, sought compensation for their Built-Up Properties (BUPs). They argued that CDA had committed to compensating them through allotments of residential plots in lieu of monetary compensation, based on a purported package deal. CDA, however, resisted these claims, alleging that the Review Orders were fraudulently obtained by individuals not genuinely entitled to compensation, and contended that compensation should only be monetary. ------ Issues: ------ 1) Entitlement to Compensation: Are the petitioners entitled to compensation for the acquired BUPs as per the Compensation Awards and Review Orders? ------ 2) Form of Compensation: Should the compensation be awarded through monetary payments or via residential plots? ------ 3) Legality of Package Deals: Can CDA legally use package deals to provide land or plots as compensation for compulsory land acquisition? ------ Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Entitlement to Compensation: The court upheld the petitioners' rights to compensation as recognized by the Compensation Awards and Review Orders, which had not been legally overturned. CDA's claim of fraud was unsupported by evidence, as previous disciplinary actions against relevant CDA officials had been overturned by the Federal Services Tribunal (FST), and the alleged fraudulent Review Orders were never annulled by a competent court. ------ Form of Compensation: The court determined that compensation should be in monetary terms, as required by the CDA Ordinance and the Land Acquisition Regulations. These regulations mandate a single, comprehensive award covering all interests in the land, including BUPs. CDA was directed to calculate and pay the monetary compensation to the petitioners based on the valuation established in the Compensation Awards, with an additional 8% annual interest for delayed payment from the date of possession transfer until full payment. ------ Package Deals and Plot Allotments: The court ruled that the CDA’s practice of negotiating package deals or offering plots in lieu of monetary compensation contravenes the CDA Ordinance and Article 24 of the Constitution. The legal framework mandates compensation solely in monetary form, prohibiting CDA from altering compensation terms through bargaining or non-monetary awards. Consequently, any policies, such as the Rehabilitation Policies of 1984, 1996, and the 2007 Regulations, that allowed for separate awards for land and BUP or plot allotments were deemed ultra vires to the CDA Ordinance. ------ Citations/Precedents: Malik Feroz Khan Noon vs. The State (PLD 1958 SC (Pak) 333): Emphasizes the principle of not making condemnatory remarks without giving the affected person a right to be heard. Mian Jamal Shah vs. Member Election Commission (PLD 1966 SC 01): Establishes that judges acting outside their official capacity can be subject to judicial review. Gul Tez Khan Marwat vs. Registrar Peshawar High Court (PLD 2021 SC 391): Affirms judicial review over executive actions performed by High Court judges. Muhammad Saleem vs. Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division (PLD 1976 Lahore 1233): Rules that all interests related to a property must be acquired simultaneously. Federal Government Of Pakistan vs. Mst. Zakia Begum (PLD 2023 SC 277): Notes that delays between acquisition notice and award issuance must consider potential value increases. Land Acquisition Collector vs. Mst. Surraya Mehmood Jan (2015 SCMR 28): Affirms the market value at the time of the acquisition notice as the compensation basis. Suo Moto Case No.13 of 2009 (PLD 2011 SC 619): The Supreme Court ruled that public agencies like CDA cannot engage in negotiations that contravene statutory requirements. Noman Ahmed and others vs. Capital Development Authority and another (PLD 2021 Islamabad 75): Holds that any compensation package conflicting with statutory requirements is void. Syed Azam Shah vs. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 201) and Shams ur Rehman vs. Military Accountant General (2020 SCMR 188): Assert that a practice contrary to statutory law cannot create legitimate rights or expectations.

Summary: Background: The Supreme Court of Pakistan reviewed multiple petitions concerning construction and environmental preservation issues within the Margalla Hills National Park and adjacent protected areas. Following prior orders for the demolition of illegally constructed restaurants within the National Park, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) confirmed the demolition, with the Islamabad Wildlife Management Board (IWMB) managing site restoration. However, challenges arose regarding permissions for construction in protected forest areas, and allegations were made concerning unauthorized developments in Zone-III of Islamabad. -----Issues: 1- Was the issuance of demolition contracts by the IWMB compliant with public procurement laws? -----2- Did the Senior Civil Judge have authority to issue a stay on the demolition, given the Supreme Court’s directive? -----3- Can the Galiyat Development Authority (GDA) approve construction within protected guzara forests? -----4- Are there unauthorized developments by Northridge Housing Society within the National Park boundaries? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, emphasizing the preservation of the National Park as a protected area and clarifying that: ---IWMB’s Demolition Contract Compliance: The Wildlife Management Board followed due process by accepting the highest bid for demolition work, contradicting claims of non-compliance with procurement laws. ---Civil Judge’s Stay Order: The Court held that the Senior Civil Judge’s order obstructed Supreme Court directives. Under Article 189, Supreme Court decisions are binding on all courts, and Article 190 mandates support from all judicial and executive authorities. The Islamabad High Court was tasked with investigating the Senior Civil Judge’s conduct. ---GDA’s Construction Permissions: The GDA cannot authorize construction in guzara forests or National Park areas, as these lands are protected under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002. The Court directed GDA to withdraw any permissions granted for unfinished projects in these areas. Unauthorized Developments by Northridge Housing Society: CDA and the Chief Commissioner of Islamabad were instructed to investigate Northridge Housing Society's construction activities in Zone-III, to determine land ownership, construction legality, and necessary permissions. Further action was ordered based on compliance findings. -----Citations/Precedents: Constitution of Pakistan: Article 189: Binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on other courts. Article 190: Obligation of executive and judicial authorities to support Supreme Court rulings. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002: Section 44: Prohibition of construction and encroachment within guzara forests. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Galiyat Development Authority Act, 2016: Governs GDA’s authority, emphasizing conservation and wildlife preservation within the forested areas under its jurisdiction.

Summary: Background: The petitions addressed unauthorized constructions and environmental encroachments within the Margalla Hills National Park and surrounding areas, challenging the actions of local authorities, including the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and Galiyat Development Authority (GDA). Key points involved the demolition of illegal restaurants, unpermitted construction in the park’s guzara forest area, and alleged regulatory lapses by the authorities. Additionally, issues arose concerning unauthorized developments by the Northridge Housing Society in Zone-III of Islamabad, an area with strict construction prohibitions. -----Issues: 1- Were the actions by local authorities, such as CDA and GDA, in permitting and demolishing structures within protected areas lawful? -----2- Did the Senior Civil Judge’s order to halt demolitions and the subsequent appeal contradict the Supreme Court’s directives? -----3- Are regulatory authorities required to halt permissions for developments violating environmental and wildlife preservation laws? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that: --Demolition Compliance and Judicial Missteps: The court confirmed that the illegal restaurants had been demolished in compliance with its orders, with the CDA affirming the removal of debris. However, the Senior Civil Judge had issued a restraining order on demolition without due process, contradicting the Supreme Court's directives. The Supreme Court referred the judge's conduct to the Islamabad High Court for review under Article 203 to determine whether action was warranted. --CDA’s Responsibilities and National Park Preservation: The court mandated that the CDA and other relevant authorities ensure compliance with environmental laws, particularly the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation, and Management) Ordinance, 1979, and the Islamabad Nature Conservation and Wildlife Management Act, 2023. The CDA and Chief Commissioner of Islamabad were directed to investigate unauthorized constructions by Northridge Housing Society in the restricted Zone-III area, ensuring adherence to regulatory requirements and halting illegal activities. --GDA’s Authority Misinterpretation: The GDA’s authorization of construction within guzara forest lands was deemed a misapplication of its regulatory powers, as such permissions contravened the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002, which prohibits construction within guzara forests and wastelands. The court instructed the GDA to withdraw any unexecuted permissions in these areas and halt further approvals, reiterating that forest conservation and wildlife preservation were integral to its functions. The Court dismissed the petitions, underscoring that all concerned authorities ensure strict compliance with environmental protection laws to maintain the National Park as a protected area. -----Citations/Precedents: Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan Article 190 of the Constitution of Pakistan Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979 Islamabad Nature Conservation and Wildlife Management Act, 2023 Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Forest Ordinance, 2002

Summary: Background: The Ministry of Interior Employees Cooperative Housing Society (MIECHS) filed a writ petition seeking compensation or alternative land for property acquired by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) in 2008 for educational purposes. MIECHS claimed it was owed compensation for 682 kanals and 15 marlas of land in Islamabad's Budhana Kalan area, acquired at a rate of Rs. 8,30,000/- per kanal in an award issued in 2009. MIECHS requested either compensation or alternative land as CDA had provided to other landowners in similar acquisitions. -----Issues: -----1- Whether CDA is justified in withholding compensation for land acquired from MIECHS in 2009. -----2- Whether the awarded compensation from 2009 remains just and fair given the delay in payment. -----3- Whether MIECHS’s land should be returned due to the prolonged non-payment of compensation. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Withholding Compensation: The Court found CDA's withholding of compensation unjustified. CDA’s inaction since 2009, without finalizing compensation for over a decade, constituted expropriation rather than legitimate acquisition, especially as CDA's ownership rights to the land were established under Section 32 of the CDA Ordinance without delivering compensation. --Fairness of 2009 Award: The Court held that paying the original 2009 compensation would not be fair due to real estate value escalation over the 15-year delay. Citing precedent, the Court emphasized that market value should reflect current land prices to ensure just compensation, aligning with the right to adequate compensation under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution. --Return of Land: The Court granted MIECHS’s alternative request, setting aside the 2009 award concerning the compensation amount. CDA was permitted to initiate a fresh determination of current market value if it wished to proceed with the acquisition. Until such compensation is paid, MIECHS retains its land rights, and CDA is liable for costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Allah Ditta v. Province of Punjab (PLD 1997 Lahore 499) – Interpretation of “as soon as possible” in compensation payments. Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J.B. Bottling Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (ILR 1978 Delhi 428) – Timeliness of compensation in acquisition cases. Federation of Pakistan v. Shaukat Ali Mian (PLD 1999 SC 1026) – Adequacy of compensation in delayed payments. Quzalbash Waqf v. Federal Land Commissioner (PLD 1990 SC 99) – Assessment of compensation fairness. Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Muhammad Hashim (PLD 2000 SC 225) – Compulsory acquisition requires fair compensation. Noman Ahmad v. Capital Development Authority (PLD 2021 Islamabad 75) – Requirement of timely, fair compensation in land acquisitions.

Summary: (a) Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 (XXIII of 1960)---- ----Ss. 22, 25(1), 27, 28, 29, 30(1), 32, 33; Capital Development Authority Land Acquisition Regulations, 1961, Rr. 3(1), 3(2), 3(5), 5(1), 15(1), 15(2), 21----Acquisition of land by Capital Development Authority (CDA)---Delayed payment of compensation---Effect---MIECHS (Ministry of Interior Employees Cooperative Housing Society) had purchased land in Revenue Estate Budhana Kalan for a housing scheme, part of which was acquired by CDA through an award dated 15.01.2009, but compensation was not paid for more than fifteen years---Contention of CDA that compensation would be paid upon transfer of possession was held to be baseless as per the law---Held, that once the award was issued, the land vested in CDA under S.32 of the CDA Ordinance, and possession could be taken by the Deputy Commissioner as per law---Regulation 15(1) required the compensation to be paid "as soon as possible" after the award, and failure to pay within a reasonable time amounted to expropriation rather than acquisition---Court observed that the value of real estate had multiplied manifold in the last fifteen years, rendering the originally determined compensation inadequate and unjust---Compensation determined in 2009 could not be ordered to be paid in 2024 without reassessment based on present market value---Inordinate delay in compensation payment was against justice and equity, and CDA was directed to reassess and pay compensation accordingly. (b) Land Acquisition--- ----Obligation of acquiring authority to pay just compensation---Failure to pay in a reasonable time---Acquiring land from private citizens for a public purpose must be accompanied by fair compensation to allow the landowner to acquire alternate land of the same value and size---Market value at the time of award loses efficacy when payment is unjustifiably delayed---Failure to compensate within a reasonable time deprives landowners of their proprietary rights and violates fundamental principles of equity and justice. (c) Constitutional Law---Fundamental Rights--- ----Art. 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973---Protection of property rights---State's power to acquire private property is subject to the obligation of just and fair compensation---Held, that expropriating property without timely compensation violates constitutional rights and principles established under Islamic jurisprudence---Acquisition proceedings cannot be deemed complete unless compensation is paid in a timely manner. (d) Precedents and Case Law Applied---- Allah Ditta v. Province of Punjab (PLD 1997 Lahore 499) Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. J.B. Bottling Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (ILR 1978 Delhi 428) Federation of Pakistan v. Shaukat Ali Mian (PLD 1999 SC 1026) Quzalbash Waqf v. Federal Land Commissioner (PLD 1990 SC 99) Dr. M. Aslam Khaki v. Muhammad Hashim (PLD 2000 SC 225) Noman Ahmad v. Capital Development Authority (PLD 2021 Islamabad 75) Ikramul Haq v. Province of Sindh (2012 CLC 655) Col. Bashir Hussain v. Land Acquisition Collector (PLD 1970 Lahore 321) Commissioner, Rawalpindi / Province of Punjab v. Naseer Ahmed (2024 SCMR 1037) (e) Disposition: Writ petition allowed to the extent that CDA was directed to reassess and pay compensation at present market rates for the acquired land, considering the escalation in land prices and the time lapse of over fifteen years.

Summary: (a) Land Acquisition Act, 1894 ----Ss. 4 & 11 Acquisition of land for defence purposes by a strategic organization---Requirement of NOC from Capital Development Authority (CDA)---Validity---Petitioner, a strategic organization under the National Command Authority Act, 2010, acquired land under notification issued by Land Acquisition Collector for defence purposes, a public purpose under S.4 of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894---Land Acquisition Collector later required the petitioner to obtain a NOC from CDA prior to proceeding with the acquisition---Held, Land Acquisition Act, 1894 does not authorize the Land Acquisition Collector to demand a NOC from any beneficiary organization---Reference to earlier judgment in Mst. Kaniz Fatima v. Federation of Pakistan was held to be distinguishable on facts---Requirement of NOC under CDA by-laws arises, if at all, only after construction on acquired land---Impugned direction was without lawful authority---Letter dated 25.08.2021 issued by the Land Acquisition Collector was declared to be ultra vires and set aside. Petition allowed. (b) Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 ----Ss. 11, 12, 15, 22 to 34 Scope and applicability---Planning and development authority of CDA---Held, CDA's jurisdiction relates to planning, zoning, and regulation of land within the Islamabad Capital Territory under the master plan---While CDA retains authority over land use and development, such authority does not extend to obstruct or override acquisitions conducted for defence purposes by strategic organizations empowered under separate statutory framework---Any construction on such acquired land remains subject to CDA by-laws post-acquisition. (c) National Command Authority Act, 2010 ----Ss. 7(b), 7(q) & 21 Strategic organizations---Acquisition of land---Overriding effect---Petitioner being a strategic organization under the NCA Act, 2010, was empowered to acquire immovable property in its own name or that of a designated officer---In case of conflict between CDA Ordinance and NCA Act, 2010, the latter shall prevail due to overriding clause in S.21---Held, defence purposes being explicitly recognized as a public purpose under land acquisition laws, fall within the domain of strategic necessity and are protected under the special mandate of the NCA Act---Requirement of prior NOC from CDA for land acquisition by a strategic organization held to be legally unsustainable. Cited Case: • Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation (FGEHF) Islamabad v. Malik Ghulam Mustafa and others 2021 SCMR 201 • Mst. Kaniz Fatima and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (W.P. No. 2016 of 2021)

Summary: Background: This case concerns multiple petitions challenging actions taken by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) against hostels and shared accommodations in residential areas of Islamabad. Petitioners, who operate these accommodations, allege that their establishments do not constitute commercial activity but are rather residential in nature. They argue that CDA's actions, including notices, fines, and sealing of premises, infringe on their fundamental rights as guaranteed under Articles 18, 10A, 23, and 24 of the Constitution. They further challenge the CDA’s authority to define "non-conforming use" and contend that the Islamabad Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Controlled Regulations), 2005, and the Islamabad Capital Territory Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2020, exceed CDA's regulatory powers. Issues Whether the use of residential properties as hostels/shared accommodations constitutes non-conforming use under CDA regulations. Whether CDA has the constitutional authority to classify and regulate the use of residential properties through regulations. Whether the CDA's actions infringe upon the petitioners' fundamental rights to property, trade, and due process as per the Constitution. Holding/Reasoning/Outcome Non-conforming Use: The court held that using residential properties for hostels/shared accommodations constitutes non-conforming use under CDA regulations. The 2020 Regulations define "residential use" as occupancy by families, specifically excluding hostels or guesthouses. The court concluded that CDA’s actions to seal and impose penalties were consistent with these regulations and did not violate the Constitution. Regulatory Authority: The court upheld CDA's authority under the CDA Ordinance to regulate and classify land use in Islamabad. The court noted that both the 2005 and 2020 Regulations were enacted within CDA’s mandate to ensure residential zoning integrity. Citing constitutional principles, the court found that CDA's regulatory power did not infringe upon constitutional rights, as these rights are subject to reasonable limitations for community welfare. Constitutional Rights: The court held that the petitioners' fundamental rights to property, trade, and due process are subject to lawful regulation. Since CDA followed due process as outlined in the 2020 Regulations, including notice and opportunity for hearing, the court dismissed the petitions, affirming CDA’s actions as lawful and constitutionally valid. Citations/Precedents Col. (R) Javed Agha v. Arshad Mahmud (2017 MLD 627 Islamabad): Establishing the precedence of non-conforming use regulations by CDA for residential properties. Mrs. Shamshad Butt v. Deputy Commissioner CDA, Islamabad (2023 CLC 304 Islamabad): Guidelines for CDA's actions regarding non-conforming use of properties. Lahore Development Authority v. Imrana Tiwana (2015 SCMR 1739): Emphasized the presumption of constitutionality in legislative and regulatory enactments. Muhammad Zahid Umar v. The State (2016 SCMR 1246): Addressed the authority of administrative bodies to regulate land use within statutory frameworks. Pakistan Broadcasters Association v. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PLD 2014 Sindh 630): Fundamental rights subject to reasonable restrictions for community interest. D.G. Khan Cement Company Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Lahore 693): Explained the need for balancing individual rights with community welfare in regulatory frameworks. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority v. Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (2016 SCMR 69): Confirmed the validity of imposing fines within the scope of parent legislation.

Summary: Background: Eight petitioners filed a writ petition (WP No. 4191/2013) before the Islamabad High Court against the Capital Development Authority (CDA), the Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency, and Ch. Tahir Sattar. They alleged that the CDA had illegally modified the Master Plan by creating new plots (No. 295-A to 295-H and 296-A to 296-B) in Street No. 56, Sector F-11/4, Islamabad. The petitioners sought a declaration to nullify these changes, prevent CDA from approving building plans for these plots, and enforce adherence to the original Master Plan. The Single Judge of the Islamabad High Court ruled in favor of the petitioners, canceling the plots and directing CDA to take departmental action against those who violated the Master Plan. ----Issues: 1. Whether CDA's alteration of the Master Plan to create new plots was lawful. 2. Whether the creation and allotment of the new plots violated any legal provisions or the rights of existing residents. 3. Whether the petition was affected by laches due to the delay in filing. 4. Whether the allotments to previous allottees whose original plots were encroached upon were justified. 5. Whether the High Court erred by not including all affected allottees as parties in the proceedings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court overturned the High Court's judgments dated April 30, 2014, and May 27, 2014. The key points of the Supreme Court's reasoning were: ----Authority and Legality: The plots were designated for 'Future Use' in the Master Plan, which did not prohibit CDA from utilizing the land for residential purposes in the future. Thus, CDA's actions were within its authority. -----Principle of Laches: The petition was filed in 2013, although the plots were allotted in 2008. The delay in filing affected the petition's validity under the principle of laches. Investment and Construction: Significant investments had already been made in constructing on Plot No. 296-B. Ignoring these investments was a critical oversight. Affected Parties: The High Court did not include all affected allottees as parties in the proceedings, which was a procedural error that affected the fairness of the decision. Future Use Definition: The term 'Future Use' did not imply that the land must remain open or be used for amenities only. CDA's use of the land for residential allotments was permissible. ---Outcome: The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's judgments and restoring the cancelled allotments of the disputed plots. All related applications were disposed of. The Court clarified that the term 'Future Use' allowed CDA to make residential allotments and highlighted the procedural necessity of including all affected parties in judicial proceedings. -----Citations/Precedents: Writ Petition WP No. 4191/2013: Filed before the Islamabad High Court. Intra Court Appeals No. 249 and 250 of 2014: Filed in response to the High Court's decisions. Civil Petition No. 993/2014: Filed by CDA in the Supreme Court. C.M.As. 7061/2016, 1850/2015 & 3500/2014: Associated applications in C.P.L.A. 993/2014. Civil Petition No. 1117/2014: Filed by Ch. Tahir Sattar in the Supreme Court. C.M.A. 3678/2014: Associated application in C.P.L.A. 1117/2014.