Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973: ----Arts. 9, 155 Public Trust Doctrine—Water as State Property—Constitutional Framework—Water is a fundamental natural resource governed by the Public Trust Doctrine, which obligates the State to safeguard it for public welfare. Articles 9 and 155 of the Constitution ensure water is treated as a vital element of life and state property. The doctrine mandates sustainable management and equitable access to water resources for present and future generations, emphasizing public interest over private exploitation. (b) Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015: ----Secs. 88, 121, Fourth Schedule, Ninth Schedule Regulation of water supply and extraction—Licensing regime—The Act enables local governments to regulate water extraction and supply through licenses and impose fees and taxes for commercial water usage. The Municipal Corporation Islamabad (MCI) is responsible for developing a licensing mechanism to regulate private water hydrants, ensuring equitable distribution and preventing over-extraction. The Act emphasizes community welfare and sustainable use of water resources. (c) Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960: ----Secs. 11, 12, 15 CDA’s jurisdiction over water resources and municipal functions—The Ordinance empowers the CDA to regulate the planning, development, and utilization of water resources within Islamabad. Municipal functions, including water supply, have been transferred to local governments under the Local Government Act, 2015. Coordination between the CDA and MCI is essential for effective water resource management. (d) Environmental Protection Laws: ----Pakistan Environmental Protection Act, 1997 Sustainable groundwater management—Environmental compliance—Unregulated extraction of groundwater by commercial entities poses severe environmental risks, including depletion of water tables and ecological imbalance. Pakistan Environmental Protection Agency (Pak-EPA) has taken measures to curb unauthorized water extraction, emphasizing compliance with environmental standards and public safety. Environmental impact assessments are necessary before granting licenses for commercial water extraction. (e) Public Trust Doctrine: ----International and local precedents The doctrine of public trust, recognized globally, views natural resources, including water, as shared assets managed by the State for public benefit. Courts in Pakistan have upheld this principle, emphasizing equitable access, environmental conservation, and regulatory oversight to prevent exploitation. Notable cases include Sindh Institute of Urology and Transplantation v. Nestle Milkpak Limited (2005 CLC 424) and Moulvi Iqbal Haider v. CDA (PLD 2006 SC 394), which reinforced water as a public trust resource. ----Disposition The petitions were disposed of with the following directives: The Federal Government must decide on MCI's proposed tax and licensing regime for water supply within 45 days. The MCI must notify and implement the licensing mechanism within 15 days of approval. Interim permissions for water supply operations may be granted for up to 45 days, subject to restrictions and guarantees, after which they will stand canceled automatically. Regulatory measures must include environmental impact assessments, public objections, and restrictions on excessive water extraction.

Summary: Background: The Supreme Court addressed systematic deforestation in Fatima Jinnah Park, Islamabad, following a public petition. The petition raised concerns about the large-scale cutting of trees, particularly paper mulberry trees, which had been planted in the 1970s but later identified as a cause of pollen allergies.-----Issue: The core issue revolves around the method of tree removal employed by CDA, particularly the engagement of a contractor who removed not only the specified paper mulberry trees but also other vegetation, leading to widespread deforestation of the park.----Findings:The court noted CDA's response to the earlier order, acknowledging the intention to remove paper mulberry trees due to health concerns. An open auction notice was issued for this purpose, and a contractor was selected.The court expressed concern over the complete denudation of the area, which went beyond the intended removal of paper mulberry trees. The work, carried out by the contractor without apparent supervision, raised questions regarding the oversight of such environmental interventions.The court highlighted the absence of a targeted approach to remove only the specified trees and the lack of internal capabilities within CDA to manage such an undertaking, relying instead on external contractors.-----Order:The court directed the cessation of further tree cutting and deforestation pending the next hearing.It sought the assistance of retired Inspector Generals of Forests, Mr. Mahmood Nasir and Syed Ghulam Qadir Shah, to provide expert opinions on best practices for vegetation management and future actions.The court instructed the office to provide copies of relevant orders and CMAs to the appointed experts for review.

Summary: Background:Masood Ahmad Bhatti, acting as the general attorney for Najeeb Ahmed Bhatti, sold a property known as "Najeeb Plaza" to Khan Badshah based on an agreement to sell dated 26.01.2017. The plaza was located in Sector 1-9 Markaz, Islamabad, with a total sale consideration of Rs.80,000,000/-. Part of the consideration was paid through a pay order, and the remaining amount was to be paid upon transfer of the plaza to Khan Badshah. Despite efforts, including an extension of the agreement, Khan Badshah failed to obtain a No Objection Certificate (NOC) from the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for the transfer.---Issues:Whether Khan Badshah fulfilled his obligations under the agreement to sell.Whether Masood Ahmad Bhatti and Najeeb Ahmed Bhatti unlawfully refused to accept the remaining sale consideration from Khan Badshah, thereby breaching the agreement.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that Khan Badshah had fulfilled his commitments under the agreement by tendering the payment and attempting to fulfill the remaining conditions, including obtaining the necessary NOC. The court found that Masood Ahmad Bhatti and Najeeb Ahmed Bhatti unlawfully refused to accept the remaining sale consideration, even though Khan Badshah demonstrated his readiness and capability to pay through pay orders. As a result, the court dismissed the petition and declined leave to appeal.---Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Abdul Rehman Qureshi vs. Sagheer Ahmad (2017 SCMR 1696)Mattik Imam Paktish vs. Muhammad Saqheer Bakhsh (2017 SCMR 516)

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the reinstatement of a fine by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) for alleged non-conforming use of a property. Initially, in 2015, CDA imposed a fine for alleged commercial use of a residential property. This order was set aside in 2017 after a commission inspection confirmed no commercial activity on the premises. However, CDA reviewed and reinstated the fine in 2021 based on new information, citing the property's address listed for a commercial entity. -----Issues: 1- Whether the CDA exceeded its jurisdiction by using review powers to re-evaluate and reinstate the fine based on new factual findings not presented in the original proceedings. -----2- Whether the scope of review under Section 36(3) of the CDA Ordinance, 1960, permits reconsideration of facts or is limited to correcting patent or clerical errors. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Scope of Review: The court held that the review under Section 36(3) of the CDA Ordinance should be limited to correcting clear errors and does not permit reassessment of facts or appellate reconsideration. --Jurisdictional Overreach: The CDA acted beyond its review jurisdiction by introducing new facts (webpage screenshot of the petitioner’s address linked to a commercial entity) that were not part of the original record. The court emphasized that new proceedings, rather than a review, should have been initiated if CDA believed new evidence warranted reconsideration. The petition was allowed, and the 2021 order reinstating the fine was set aside as it constituted an unlawful exercise of appellate jurisdiction under the guise of review. -----Citations/Precedents: Mehmood Hussain Lark v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (2010 SCMR 1036) Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR (2010 SCMR 1049) Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem Qureshi (PLD 1991 SC 905)

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the order dated 16.09.2021, through which the Capital Development Authority (CDA) reviewed and reinstated a fine of Rs. 500,000 that had been initially imposed on 10.11.2015 for the non-conforming use of a residential property. This fine was originally set aside by the CDA Commissioner on 31.07.2017 after an inspection report found no commercial activity on the premises. However, in the review, the fine was reinstated based on new evidence that the petitioner’s property was associated with Pakistan Press International (Pvt.) Ltd., a fact not previously raised. -----Issues: 1- Whether the CDA's review of its earlier decision, reinstating the fine for non-conforming use, was valid under the law governing reviews. ----2- Whether the scope of the review jurisdiction was exceeded by considering new facts that were not presented in the initial proceedings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the CDA Commissioner acted beyond the scope of his review jurisdiction by reconsidering the matter afresh instead of limiting the review to correcting errors on the surface of the record. The review decision was based on new factual evidence, such as the web page showing the petitioner's association with Pakistan Press International, which was neither part of the original case nor relevant to the review process. The court concluded that if there was new evidence, fresh proceedings could have been initiated rather than using review jurisdiction improperly. The petition was allowed, and the impugned order dated 16.09.2021 was set aside, as the review was found to be beyond the scope of what is permissible under the law. ----Citations/Precedents: Mehmood Hussain Lark v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. (2010 SCMR 1036) Haji Muhammad Boota v. Member (Revenue) BOR (2010 SCMR 1049) Arif Shah v. Abdul Hakeem Qureshi (PLD 1991 SC 905)

Summary: Background: The petitioners, sought a declaration of ownership for Plot No.22 and Plot No.26 in Islamabad's Grain Market and Cloth Market, respectively. Parwez had emerged as the highest bidder for both plots in a CDA auction. Parwez paid 40% of the bid amounts but faced financial difficulties, leading him to request a refund for Plot No.26 and subsequently for Plot No.22 as well. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioners are entitled to ownership of Plot No.22 and Plot No.26. 2- Whether the CDA acted fairly in adjusting the amounts paid by Parwez for Plot No.26 towards his liability for Plot No.22. 3- Whether the legal heirs of Parwez can claim the plots despite the initial surrender requests made by Parwez. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Ownership and Refund Requests: Parwez had initially requested a refund for Plot No.26, and later for Plot No.22. The CDA adjusted the amount paid for Plot No.26 towards the outstanding balance for Plot No.22 but did not fully refund the amounts as requested by Parwez. Parwez’s legal heirs later sought to retain both plots, expressing their willingness to pay any outstanding amounts. --Adjustment and Legal Entitlement: The CDA's adjustment of the amount paid by Parwez for Plot No.26 towards the liability for Plot No.22 effectively meant that Parwez’s financial liability for Plot No.22 was cleared. The CDA, however, did not officially cancel the allotment of Plot No.26 or issue a refund for the full amount paid by Parwez, leaving an ambiguity. --Rights of Legal Heirs: The court found that the legal heirs could not be faulted for Parwez’s request for a refund due to his illness. The legal heirs' subsequent withdrawal of the refund request and their willingness to retain both plots were considered. The court held that since the CDA adjusted the payment and did not refund the amounts, the legal heirs retained rights over Plot No.22. ----Citations/Precedents: Saad Muhammad Shaheen Al-Soofi Vs. Principle & Chairman, Academic Council, Sindh Medical College (1982 CLC 805) Shamim Khan Vs. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority (1999 YLR 410)

Summary: Background: This judgment addresses multiple intra-court appeals and writ petitions regarding the legality of demands for advertisement charges by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the National Highway Authority (NHA). These demands, issued via notifications and regulations, were challenged by various petitioners. The core issue revolves around the validity of the CDA's revision of advertisement rates in 2014 and similar demands by the Metropolitan Corporation of Islamabad (MCI) and its Union Councils. -----Issues: 1- Whether the CDA had the legal authority to revise advertisement rates through the 2014 SRO without the Government's sanction. 2- Whether the demands for advertisement charges by MCI and its Union Councils were valid under the Islamabad Capital Territory Local Government Act, 2015 (LGA 2015). 3- Whether the NHA's demands for advertisement fees were legal. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: CDA's Authority and 2014 SRO: The CDA lacked the authority to issue the 2014 SRO revising advertisement rates without the Federal Government's approval. The SRO was issued solely by the CDA Board without the necessary sanction, making it invalid. Quid Pro Quo Principle: The 2008 Revision and 2014 SRO failed to establish a direct correlation between the fees charged and the cost of services provided. The exorbitant increase in advertisement rates could not be justified as the CDA did not demonstrate an increase in regulatory costs. MCI and Union Councils' Demands: The demands for advertisement charges by the MCI and Union Councils were based on the invalid 2014 SRO. Furthermore, they did not comply with the vetting and procedural requirements under the LGA 2015. NHA's Demands: The demands by the NHA for advertisement fees on signboards placed on private buildings were also found to be illegal. -----Citations/Precedents: Federation of Pakistan vs. Durrani Ceramics and others, 2014 SCMR 1630: Clarified the distinction between a tax and a fee, emphasizing the requirement for a direct correlation between the fee and the service provided. Pakcom Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2011 SC 44: Supported the principle of quid pro quo for fees. Khurshid Soap and Chemical Industries (Private) Limited vs Federation of Pakistan, PLD 2020 SC 641: Reinforced the necessity of a direct correlation between fees and services. Workers Welfare Fund v. East Pakistan Chrome Tannery, PLD 2017 SC 28: Addressed the nature of common burdens and taxes. Secundrabad Hyderabad Hotel Owners Association vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation etc, AIR 1999 SC 635: Discussed the limitations on the imposition of excessive fees. University of Malakand vs. Dr. Alam Zeb and others, 2021 SCMR 678: Highlighted that no estoppel exists against the law. Mrs. Bilquis Anwar Khan and others vs Pakistan and others, 2001 SCMR 809: Differentiated between valid and invalid imposition of taxes by statutory bodies.

Summary: The appellant, a contractor, was awarded a contract by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) to furnish 24 suites at Parliament Lodges. The contract, dated 14.01.1997, was valued at Rs.4,667,889. The appellant completed the work within the prescribed 60-day period, but CDA delayed the payment of the outstanding amount. Although part of the payment was made, Rs.2,514,493 remained unpaid. The appellant filed a suit in 1999, which led to a decree for Rs.241,330, with the claim for escalation charges and interest being denied by the Civil Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant was entitled to escalation charges for the delay in payment. 2- Whether the appellant was entitled to interest on the outstanding payment. 3- Whether CDA's refusal to pay the remaining amount was justified due to defects in the appellant’s work. 4- Whether the Civil Court’s judgment failed to address damages for CDA's breach of contract. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court upheld the Civil Court's decree, awarding Rs.241,330 to the appellant but denying escalation charges. However, the High Court found that the Civil Court erred in not awarding interest. It was established that CDA breached the contract by delaying payment without justifiable cause. The Court determined that the appellant was entitled to interest at an average rate of 11% per annum from 25.04.1997 until the payment of the outstanding amount in installments. The claim for escalation charges was dismissed based on contract terms explicitly disallowing such charges. ----Citations/Precedents: Section 34 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Discretionary power to award interest on the principal sum. Najm Koreshi Vs Chase Manhattan Bank now Muslim Commercial Limited, Lahore (2015 SCMR 1461): Clarified the court’s discretion to award interest under Section 34. Lahore Development Authority Vs. M/s Faisal International Construction Corporation Limited (2004 CLC 1879): Affirmed the court's discretion in awarding interest. Federation of Pakistan Vs. M/s Aalme Engineers (Pvt.) Ltd. (2015 CLC 1273): Held that delay in payment attracts the provisions of Section 34 CPC.

Summary: Background: In the Islamabad High Court, the case of Muhammad Zafran Qureshi vs. Capital Development Authority (CDA) involves a dispute over compensation and the development of village property. The petitioner, Muhammad Zafran Qureshi, sought judicial intervention regarding compensation for land and built-up property, and the development of village property into model villages. ----Issues: Whether the compensation for the land and built-up property has been fully paid to the affected parties. Whether the property of the villages should be developed and converted into model villages, a decision pending with the Federal Government. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court acknowledged the report from the CDA stating that compensation for the land and built-up property had been paid. However, the decision regarding the development of the villages' property into model villages was still pending with the Federal Government. The Director (RP) of the CDA, Mr. Ejaz-Ul-Hassan, appeared in court and provided this information, noting the stance of the previous owners regarding the development of the property. The petitioner or their representative was not present to challenge this position. The Court decided to re-list the case for further proceedings on July 6, 2023, to allow time for the petitioner to be present and potentially provide further information or contest the CDA’s position. ----Quote: Acquisition effectees Case seeking direction for allotment of agro farm Mouza Sumbal Korak

Summary: Background: This case involves an appeal (RFA No. 74/2006) filed by the CDA against Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar and others. The dispute revolves around the ownership of land and contractual agreements related to a housing scheme. ----Issues: The main issues addressed in this proceeding are: Whether the land in question was transferred to CDA. The validity of the liquidator's claim regarding the ownership of the land. Assessment of costs for the parties involved in the appeal. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The liquidator, representing M.G. Hertz (Private) Limited (MGC), asserted a claim to the suit land based on a chain of agreements related to a housing scheme. The trial court decreed in favor of respondent no.1, directing CDA to transfer the land back to respondent no.1 and ordering respondent no.1 to return a certain amount to CDA. CDA appealed the judgment, arguing that the land was never transferred to it and disputing the ownership claims. During submissions, CDA and respondent no.1 agreed to modify the judgment to achieve the objective of transferring the land back to respondent no.1. The liquidator claimed a proprietary interest in the land based on financial transactions involving MGC, but the court found this claim to be without merit. The court allowed costs to respondent no.3 (NHA) and respondent no.1, with a reduction in the costs claimed by respondent no.1. The liquidator was directed to pay the allowed costs to the respective counsels for their clients.