MALL DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD. vs WALEED KHANZADA Chapt — 2022 SCMR 2080 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

MALL DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD. VS WALEED KHANZADA Chapt. V---Amenity plot---Lease hold rights of a commercial plot transferred by Defence Housing Authority (DHA) to a company (appellant)---Commercial plot merged with an "adjacent plot" sold to the appellant by DHA---Legality---Constitutional petition filed by the respondent with the plea that adjacent plot was an amenity pot and could not be merged with the commercial plot was allowed by the High Court---Held, that nothing was available on the record to show that the amenity plot was advertised to be sold/transferred or, that objections were called from the general public when it was purportedly being sold by converting it into a commercial plot, which casted a shadow on the entire transaction and suggested that the transfer of the amenity in favour of the appellant lacked transparency and adherence to the law---Letter of the Military Estates Officer was available on record which mentioned the adjacent plot as a "Park"---Fact that the Military Estates Officer mentioned the word "Park" in his letter established that the adjacent plot was not to be used for a commercial purpose---Adjacent plot was mentioned as a "Park" in various letters issued by DHA as well---Furthermore a clause of the agreement between DHA and the appellant only allowed the appellant to "develop" the adjacent plot with "amenities"---As such, the mode and manner in which the adjacent plot could be used had been restricted---Fact that appellant had paid consideration for the adjacent plot did not mean that it could do whatever it wanted with the adjacent plot---Mere payment of consideration did not mean that anything done illegally would get protection of the law---High Court was correct to hold that the adjacent plot was unlawfully annexed/amalgamated with the commercial plot and that the nature and land use of the adjacent plot could not be changed, altered or modified in violation of the rights of public at large---Appeal was dismissed and judgment of the High Court was upheld.

MALL DEVELOPMENT (PVT.) LTD. vs WALEED KHANZADA Chapt — 2022 SCMR 2080 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2022 SCMR