11-13-2013, 05:07 PM
“The original master plan of the same land, issued by DHA, shows amenity plots specifically allocated for a park, schools, sewerage treatment plant and a graveyard,” the plaintiff argued, adding that the amenity plots were designed for the benefit of general public. Under the main lease, these plots cannot be used for any other purpose nor can be sold, allotted or transferred to any private person including the builders, maintained Khan.
On September 20, the single bench had restrained the defendants from launching the projects. At a subsequent hearing on October 9, however, the bench had modified its stay order, temporarily allowing the builder to raise constructions of the projects at his own risk and cost till November 12 when DHA would prove that the land was not originally reserved for amenity purposes.
On Monday, the plaintiff, Khan, challenged the single bench’s order, alleged that the respondents had concealed the part of the original master plan, where a sewerage plant was installed. The plant was functional until 2010 when the DHA removed it by launching the project.
Barrister for the appellant, Salahuddin Ahmed, argued that the modification of the previous stay order would affect the petitioner and the public at large. DHA cannot change the use of the land for which it was originally earmarked, he stressed.
The lawyer pleaded to the court to set aside the single bench’s order. After the preliminary hearing, a division bench, headed by Justice Faisal Arab, issued notices.
On September 20, the single bench had restrained the defendants from launching the projects. At a subsequent hearing on October 9, however, the bench had modified its stay order, temporarily allowing the builder to raise constructions of the projects at his own risk and cost till November 12 when DHA would prove that the land was not originally reserved for amenity purposes.
On Monday, the plaintiff, Khan, challenged the single bench’s order, alleged that the respondents had concealed the part of the original master plan, where a sewerage plant was installed. The plant was functional until 2010 when the DHA removed it by launching the project.
Barrister for the appellant, Salahuddin Ahmed, argued that the modification of the previous stay order would affect the petitioner and the public at large. DHA cannot change the use of the land for which it was originally earmarked, he stressed.
The lawyer pleaded to the court to set aside the single bench’s order. After the preliminary hearing, a division bench, headed by Justice Faisal Arab, issued notices.