LHC seeks government counsel's assistance on land use law

The Lahore High Court, while directing the Punjab government counsel to assist the court on the point whether a place could be used for any other purposes fixed for public utility could be used for any other purposes, adjourned to March 25 the proceedings in a petition filed against construction of IMAX theatre on Doongi ground in Gulberg.
Earlier, the Punjab Government counsel had informed the court that the place for ground would be maintained for the same purpose. He said only 18 percent area of total ground was used for construction purpose while rest of the place would be kept as ground. The court asked the lawyer whether in the past anyone was allowed to make construction under the playground.
Petitioners' counsel Muhammad Azhar Siddique, however, opposed and said that Doongi Ground had been earmarked as a public park in the original scheme designed for Gulberg before the creation of Pakistan and could not be used for commercial purposes.
He said that recreational facilities such as parks and grounds were reducing rapidly in the city due to commercialisation of their lands and should be protected. The petition was filed by Karachi-based NGO Shehri-CBE (Citizens for Better Environment), journalist Ardshir Cowasji and 11 residents of the area had moved the petition in 2006 when Prevaiz Elahi was chief minister of Punjab.
The petitioners submitted that the project was illegal and no no-objection certificate was obtained from the Environmental Protection Agency. The petition had also challenged the transfer of the land of Doongi Ground from the LDA to the PHA and then to the Punjab Entertainment Company submitting that the whole process was flawed and was done in flagrant violation of the law.
On August 8, 2006, a single bench of the LHC had stopped the provincial government and the Punjab Entertainment Company (PEC) from continuing the construction of the Cineplex. The stay order was vacated on March 9 by LHC division bench and work was resumed. However, the petitioners moved another petition in the SC, which had stopped the work again and referred the matter to LHC for disposal in accordance with the law.