A two-member bench of the Sindh High Court has directed the Defence Housing Authority (DHA) and Clifton Cantonment Board (CCB) to place on record maps of Karachi Cantonment and Clifton Cantonment to determine under whose jurisdiction the multi-billion rupees mega projects, ie EMAAR Crescent Bay and Meinhardt Creek Marina fall.
The order was passed by the bench comprising Chief Justice Sarmad Jalal Osmani and Justice Zahid Hamid when the petition filed under Article 199 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 by Transparency International Pakistan through its chairman Syed Adil Gilani came up for hearing on May 18. The petitioner stated as under:
- That the petitioner is striving for the rule of law in Pakistan, which is foremost to eliminate corruption, and bring economic revival in Pakistan as it is generally felt among masse that we have law in Pakistan, but the rule of law is missing.
-- The petitioner quoted from the two speeches of Chief Justice of Pakistan Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry as under:
-- Delivered at Lahore High Court on May 6: "There are two kinds of people in Pakistan. First those who consider themselves above law and the second those who have no idea as to where from justice is sought. In a situation like this, I took responsibility on my shoulders and set up a cell in the Supreme Court which solved thousands of cases. During my tenure, we disposed of over 75 percent of pending cases."
-- Delivered in Hyderabad on May 10: "In the past institutionalisation of the judiciary was prevented by one or the other way. Now we have to deliver. If this time the judiciary failed to deliver then it would mean that judges did not dispense justice. I must tell you if we fail then no one will remember that there used to exist an institution called the judiciary. We must tell the people what we are saying we mean it. When the entire nation is behind judiciary what makes you scared? We are those who deliver justice which is the power of Allah Almighty alone."
-- The petitioner said it is very unfortunate that a number of regulatory authorities in Pakistan do not want to be regulated themselves.
-- That the public has been constantly worried on account of unethical business working of many builders and land developers who are not observing the formalities of legal paper work when they sell or book a plot or a built-up unit in their projects.
-- That the builder mafia has operated unopposed and fleecing allottees/buyers, disregarding any morals, rules or regulations. Land deals cheating the public of thousands of crores of rupees are routinely concluded in the name of upliftment of the poor, and providing cheap shelters.
-- That the builder/land mafia has evolved a unique practice where the builder is not the owner of land and forms of sale when signed are not with the advertised builder but with a third party. Media is reluctant to public news against them as they are one of the largest providers of advertisements to print and electronic media.
-- It has been observed with great pain that in majority of cases when buyers are not able to pay the regular instalments, builders impose heavy penalties and in some cases in DHA viz. multi billion rupees mega projects EMAAR Crescent Bay and Meinhardt Creek Marina, 30 percent of the unit prices/total price are to be deducted although the building byelaws do not permit penalty of more than four percent of the paid instalments in case of cancellation of the unit from builder as well as buyer.
-- Local as well as foreign builders from UAE and Singapore are active in these fraudulent practices in Pakistan. In many cases, builders make booking for the same unit in the name of multiple buyers thus leaving the scope of blackmailing the general public who invests with such builders.
After hearing Deputy Attorney General (DAG) as well as other counsel, the Sindh High Court bench in its order said: "In our opinion, the basic issue to be decided is whether or not the area in which two projects are coming up viz Creek Marina and Crescent Bay fall within the jurisdiction of Clifton Cantonment Board.
Prima facie, it appears that the land for both projects was purchased by the DHA from Port Qasim Authority. It does not follow automatically that just because the DHA has purchased the same land, therefore, the Clifton Cantonment Board, for that matter, any other Cantonment Board should have jurisdiction over it in so far as provision of civic amenities, etc are concerned.
In this connection reference can be made to Section 24 of the Presidential Order No 7 of 1980 wherein it has been clearly laid down that Karachi Cantonment limits would comprise all areas of the existing cantonment lying to the North of the Karachi-Drigh road main railway line and the Clifton Cantonment would comprise the balance areas."
Consequently, the bench requested the counsel appearing for DHA to place on record the map of Karachi Cantonment, if possessed by DHA, and so also such would be done by Clifton Cantonment Board. After hearing the arguments, the case was adjourned to May 25, 2010 at 9 am.
Comments
Comments are closed.