Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Official Citation: 2026 LHC 2731
Court / Jurisdiction: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan)
Parties: SYED NAUMAN SHAH vs PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN ETC
Ruling Summary: This decision was rendered by the Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan), officially reported as 2026 LHC 2731. In this matter between SYED NAUMAN SHAH and PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN ETC, the court adjudicated key questions of statutory construction, procedural regularity, and legal precedent under Pakistani law.
Core Holding: The honorable bench evaluated governing statutory provisions and judicial authorities to establish the rights of the parties, delivering the binding reasoning set out below.
COURT: Lahore High Court (Honorable Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan) DECISION DATE: 06-04-2026 CASE DETAILS: Writ Petition-Environment-Miscellaneous 2371-24 ============================================================ Stereo. H C J D A 38.
IN THE LAHOR E HIGH COURT, RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
Syed Nauman Shah Versus Prime Minister of Pakistan and others
JUDGMENT
Dates of Hearing: 21.01.2026, 04.02.2026, 19.02.2026, 02.04.2026, 06.04.2026 Petitioner by: M/s. Asad Iqbal Siddiqui and Abdul Wasay, Advocates with Petitioner Syed Nauman Shah. Respondents by: Barrister Zain Mansoor, Assistant Attorney General. Mr. Muhammad Irshad, Assistant Advocate -General with Umar Awais Kiani, ADCR, Murree. Ch. Ehtisham-ul-Haq, ASC and Ch. Waqas Zamir, Advocate for the Respondent No.4. M/s. Ali Nawaz Khan, ASC, Malik Saqib Mehmood Khalid, Barrister Liba Qayyum and Barrister Hassan Muneeb, Advocates for Respondents No.5 with Basit Khan, Director Law, FGEHA and Abdul Ghaffar Afzal, Deputy Director Law, FGEHA. Syed Qalb-e-Hassan, Sr. ASC, Barrister Syed Saim Hassan and Faiza Iqbal, Advocates for Respondent No.6. Raja Waqar Ilyas, Advocate for Respondent No.8/RDA.
JAWAD HASSAN, J. The Petitioner/Syed Nauman Shah has filed this writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 (the “Constitution”), in 2024, against the re -initiation of the housing Project i.e. M/s. Commoners Sky Garden (t he “Project”) started by the Respondent No.4 and later on taken over by the Respondents No.5 and 6 (Executive Board of the Federal Government Employees Housing Authority (FGEHA), through its Chairman) and (Federal Government Employees 2
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
Housing Authority through its D.G.), without obtaining all the requisite permissions/NOCs. The Petitioner further seeks directions to (i) implement Suo Motu judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in Suo Motu Case No.10 of 20 05 (2010 SCMR 361 ) read with t he judgment reported a s MUHAMMAD ASJAD ABBASI and others Versus IQBAL MUHAMMAD CHAUHAN and others (2018 SCMR 2051 ); (ii) permanent restrain Respondents No.4 to 6 from setting up the housing Project in the Revenue Estate of Moza Mangal and Kathar , Tehsil Murree, District Rawalpindi; and desist from encroaching upon ownership, forest and shamlat land; (iii) declare Joint Venture Agreement as null and void; and (iv) declare NOCs issued by RDA, EPA or other authorities as illegal, unlawful and without lawful authority. For ready reference the prayer clause of the Petition is reproduced as under: 1. In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to exercise its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 and accordingly: 2. It is, therefore, humbly prayed that appropriate directions may be issued to Respondents to implement the Judgment passed by the Hon ’ble Supreme Court 2010 SCMR 361 read with the Judgment reported at 2018 SCMR 2051 and as a consequence permanently restrain Respondent No. 4 to 6 from setting a housing society in the Revenue Estate of Moza Mangal and Kathar Tehsil Murree District Rawalpindi. 3. Respondents No.4 to 6 further to desist from encroaching upon the Ownership. forest and shamlat land for setting up any Housing project in the Revenue Estate of Moza Mengal & Kathar. Tehsil Murree District Rawalpindi, being completely unsuitable on account of being a unique and envir onmentally rich and sensitive area which is also likely to affect the public at 3
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
large with reference to fundamental rights enshrined in Article 9 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973. 4. And notwithstanding Respondents 6 may also be directed to vacate the land already occupied by the Respondent No.6, remove all the construction material and machinery from the site 5. Respondent No. 6 being a Federal Government Controlled department may graciously be directed to plant 20 Million purposeful Trees to replace the already cut 25000 trees with burgees/boundaries at their original spots, as they were prior to their removal by Respondents No. 4 to 6 and the aforementioned land including Smamlat Deh. 6. The Hon'ble may also declare the Joint Venture Agreement between Respondent No. 4 and 6 for the development of the Housing Project described as "Commoners Sky Garden" as null and void, against public policy and fundamental rights of the public at large. 7. To declare the NOC'S if issued by RDA and EPA or any other agency in favour of the Respondent No 4 to 6 for development of housing project on the land located in the Revenue Estate of Moza Mangel and Kathar Tehsil Murree, District Rawalpindi as illegal, unlawful, null and void and to have initiated without lawful authority. 8. Grant any other relief which this hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case. Cost/may also be awarded. (I) OVERTURE OF THE CASE 2. This judgment examines the maintainability an d scope of the instant writ petition, wherein the Petitioner alleges violation of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan i.e. (2010 SCMR 361) and (2018 SCMR 2051) on the ground that the Respondents have re -initiated and proceeded with the aforesaid housing Project without obtaining requisite 4
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
permissions/NOCs and seeks implementation of the said judgments along with multiple consequential reliefs. On the other hand, the Respondents assert that all requisite approvals/NOCs have duly been obtained and no violation of the Supreme Court’s directions has occurred, besides contending that a Special Bench for implementation of the aforesaid judgment has already been constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Therefore, in the light of the divergent submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the legal position emerging from the insertion of clause (1 -A) to Article 199 of the Constitution, this Court, adopting a heu ristic approach to resolve the controversy and avoid any cognitive bias, is required to examine the following points: (I). Whether the grievances raised by the Petitioner, particularly regarding the alleged re-initiation of the Housing Project during the period from 2019 to 2021 and subsequent development activities fall within the ambit of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
(II). Whether this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199, can direct implementation of a judgment rendered under Article 187(2), claimed to be binding under Article 189; when a Special Bench for implementation of the aforesaid judgment has already been constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court?
(III). Whether such a petition with vague or multiple prayers is maintainable in view of Article 199(1-A)?
(II) PRELUDE OF THE CASE 3. The Petitioner, being owner of 75 kanals of land in Mauza Mangel, Tehsil Murree, District Rawalpindi, challenges the re -initiation and development of the aforesaid housing Project by Respondents No.4 to 6 on the basis of a joint venture. It is stated that the Project is being carried out without lawful approval, as the Respondents, in connivance with each other, have wrongly shown issuance of permission by certain authorities, while in fact no valid sanction exists. It is further alleged that the regulatory authorities failed to perform their duties, allowing illegal construction that may affect the Petitioner and the public at large. 5
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
The Petitioner relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court (2010 SCMR 361), where construction in environmentally sensitive areas like Murree and adjoining regions was restricted, especially on forest and shamlat land and where no EIA approval was granted. Despite this, the Respondents entered into a Joint Venture Agreement in 2019 for more than 6000 kanals, including shamlat land, even there were adverse reports and pending inquiries. It is further stated that the Project, first started by the Respondent No.4 and later hande d over to the Respondent No.6, has been executed without obtaining required approvals, NOCs, and environmental clearances under the law. The Petitioner alleges that the Respondents ignored legal restrictions and Supreme Court’s directions and continued construction, causing deforestation and environmental damage, which affects water resources, wildlife, and the environment, and violates the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution. Hence, this Petition. (III) PETITIONERS’ SUBMISSIONS 4. Mr. Asad Iqbal Siddiqui, Advocate for the Petitioner, has submitted that the entire Project started by Respondents No.4 to 6 is manifestly illegal, unlawful and in blatant violation of the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, whereby the said Project had ef fectively been restrained on environmental and legal grounds. He added that no Environmental Impact Assessment approval was ever granted for the Project and the area having been declared environmentally sensitive, all construction and development activities were expressly prohibited; thus, any subsequent initiation of the Project is void ab initio. He further stated that despite clear directions of the Supreme Court restraining the Respondent No.4 from carrying out development activities, the Respondents, in connivance with each other , entered into a Joint Venture Agreement and proceeded with construction, thereby defeating the mandate of law and authority of the superior judiciary. Learned counsel emphatically contended that the pivotal legal requirement governing the controversy arises from the mandatory provisions of environmental law, particularly that no proponent of a Project can commence 6
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
construction or operational activity un less the prescribed environmental approval regime has been strictly complied with. He submitted that prior submission of an Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) or, where applicable, an Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA), and its approval by the competent authority is a condition precedent and a sine qua non for lawful initiation of any such Project. He urged that this requirement is not merely procedural but goes to the root of jurisdiction and any construction undertaken in violation thereof is patently illegal and without lawful authority. Learned counsel urged that even in subsequent proceedings before the Supreme Court, the stance of the Respondent No.4 seeking differential treatment was categorically rejected and the earlier judgment remained intact and binding; hence, the Respondents cannot circumvent the same under any pretext. He asserted that a substantial portion of the project land comprises of shamlat land, which cannot legally be utilized for such development and that the Respondents have deliberately misinterpreted judicial orders to justify their illegal actions. He further contended that the conduct of the Respondent No.6 demonstrates a consistent pattern of acting in disregard of lawful authority and judicial pronouncements and the present project is a continuation of such mala fide conduct aimed at achieving ulterior motives. He also urged that the Project, if allowed to continue, would result in severe environmental consequences, including deforestation, soil erosion, disruption of water channels, and contamination of water reservoirs, thereby endangering the lives of residents of the area and the general public. He emphasized that the actions of the Respondents amount to infringement of fundamental rights, particularly the right to life and that this Court is under constitutional obligation to intervene and prevent further illegalities. He finally submitted that the Respondents have failed to obtain requisite approvals, ignored binding judicial directions, and proceeded in a clandestine manner, thus rendering the entire project illegal and liable to be annulled.
7
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
(IV) RESPONDENTS’ SUBMISSIONS (i) Submission of the Respondents No.1 5. Barrister Zain Mansoor, Assistant Attorney General has objected to the maintainability of this Petition on the ground of vague and multiple prayers. (ii) Submission of the Respondents No.2, 3, 7, 12 and 13. 6. Mr. Muhammad Irshad, Assistant Advocate-General has also objected to the maintainability of this Petition, on the ground that already the Supreme Court of Pakistan has constituted a Special Bench for implementation of the aforesaid judgment. Hence, this Petition is liable to be dismissed. (iii) Submission of the Respondents No.4 7. Ch. Ehtisham-ul-Haq, ASC for the Respondent No.4/M/s. Commoners Sky Garden Private Limited, has objected to the maintainability of this Petition on the basis of written reply and submitted that the operational work on the Project is being carried out in conformity with the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan i.e. ( 2010 SCMR 361) and (2018 SCMR 2051). He further argued that the Petitioner has filed this Pet ition to blackmail the Respondents, which is based on mala fide and ulterior motive and that he has neither any cause of action nor locus standi to file this Petition rather has approached this Court with unclean hands by concealing material facts. He added that the conduct of the Petitioner amounts to abuse of the process of law and to cause prejudice and harassment to the Respondents. Added that the Petition is also not maintainable on the basis of multiple and vague prayers and is barred by law. 8. Ch. Ehtisham-ul-Haq, ASC while specifically questioned the maintainability of this petition in the context of Articles 187 and 189 of the Constitution; submitted that Article 187 vests exclusive authority in the Supreme Court to pass such directions, orders or decrees as may be necessary for doing complete justice and to ensure enforcement of its own orders; thus, the constitutional scheme does not envisa ge initiation of fresh constitutional proceedings before a High Court. He further submitted that although Article
8
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
189 makes the law declared by the Supreme Court binding but such binding effect is confined to the ratio decidendi and does not convert every operative direction into an independently enforceable cause of action through writ jurisdiction. He stated that in paragraph No.10 of the judgment ((2018 SCMR 2051), a specific Implementation Bench was constituted to oversee compliance and the matter remai ns sub judice before the Supreme Court, which has retained seisin. He argued that filing of the present writ petition amounts to invoking parallel jurisdiction, which is not permissible under Article 199 and would amount to stepping into the shoes of the S upreme Court’s implementation Bench, and that entertaining such petitions would unsettle the constitutional scheme, lead to multiplicity of proceedings and undermine the authority of the Supreme Court’s implementation mechanism. 9. Learned counsel further submitted that the Respondent No.4 has implemented the judgment supra in its letter and spirit, as the land was duly converted from Shamilat-e-Deh into ownership through lawful settlement in accordance with sharait wajib-ul-arz, after obtaining approvals from RDA and EPA, clearance by NAB and was thereafter transferred in favour of FGEHA; hence, no violation subsists. He further submitted that the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate any independent cause of action or violation of fundamental rights, and this petition merely seeks execution and supervision of a Supreme Court judgment, which does not fall within the ambit of Article 199. He also submitted that the Petitioner has filed this Petition to stop economic advancement, as delay in the Project would cause substantial loss of foreign investments, disrupt planned development and curtail economic activity, and that the Government, after acquiring land through Joint Venture Agreement dated 11.10.2019, has already spent almost R s.12 billion on development, while the Petitioner is attempting to disrupt such economic progress through repeated Petitions. He, therefore, prayed for dismissal of the writ Petition.
9
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
(iv) Submission of Respondents No.5 10. M/s. Ali Nawaz Khan and Malik Saqib Mehmood Khalid, Advocates have also objected to the maintainability of this petition and relied on the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Respondent No.4. (v) Submission made by Syed Qalb -e-Hassan, ASC for the Respondent No.6/FGEHA
11. Syed Qalb -e-Hassan, ASC for the Respondent No.6 /FGEHA, while affirming, relying and supporting the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Respondent No.4, objected to the maintainability of this Petition on the basis of vague and multiple prayers. He further submitted that the area in question is not reserved for forest. Added that they started the project after obtaining all the required approvals/NOCs from the concerned authorities/departments and have incurred billions of rupees, as the project now stands at an advanced stage. Therefore, vested rights have accrued in their favour and now its withdrawal without any solid reason at this advance stage, would cause irreparable loss. (vi) Submission made by Raja Waqar Ilyas, Advocate for the Respondent No.8/RDA.
12. Raja Waqar Ilyas, Advocate for the Respondent No.8/RDA has also objected to the maintainability of this Petition by stating that the NOCs/approval have been issued to the Respondents after completion of all legal as well as codal formalities. He, however, supported the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the Respondents No.4 to 6 and prayed for dismissal of this Petition. 13. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance. (V) DETERMINATION BY THE COURT 14. In order to resolve the issues involved in this case following constitutional moot points are framed for determination: (I). Whether the grievances raised by the Petitioner, particularly regarding the alleged re -initiation of the 10
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
Housing Project during the period from 2019 to 2021 and subsequent development activities fall within the ambit of constitutional jurisdiction under Ar ticle 199 of the Constitution? (II). Whether this Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 199, can direct implementation of a judgment rendered under Article 187(2), claimed to be binding under Article 189; when a Special Bench for implementation of the aforesaid judgment has already been constituted by the Hon’ble Supreme Court? (III). Whether such a petition with vague or multiple prayers is maintainable in view of Article 199(1-A).
I shall now proceed to examine and decide the aforesaid con stitutional moot points one by one.
(I). Whether the grievances raised by the Petitioner, particularly regarding the alleged re -initiation of the Housing Project during the period from 2019 to 2021 and subsequent development activities fall within the ambit of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution?
15. In the backdrop of the respective contentions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record, this is the foremost question which arises for determination by this Court . No doubt, this Court has consistently passed judgments dealing with environmental impact and enforcement of Environmental Laws, emphasizing the necessity of strict compliance with statutory requirements and protection of ecological balance in the cases reported as “Pervaiz Abbasi Versus Government of Punjab and others” (PLD 2025 Lahore 191), “Muhammad Banaras Versus Govt. of the Punjab etc.” (PLJ 2024 Lahore 242) (Rawalpindi Bench) and the Article on “Bhurban Declaration and the Environmental Laws of Pakistan” (the “Article”) written by me [(Jawad Hassan) when I was the Additional Advocate-General Punjab at Supreme Court, Islamabad], which was published in 2012 CLD Journal at page 79 [PLD Publishers]. The Article mentions the excellent efforts of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in 11
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
convening the South Asian Conference on Environmental Justice, in Bhurban, Pakistan on 24th and 25th of March, 2012, brought together Chief Justices and their designees from the highest Courts of Afghanistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Maldives, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Malaysia, and Indonesia, which was supported by the Asian Development Bank (ADB), United Nation’s Environment Program (UNEP) and the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). At the end of the Conference, the South East Asian Judiciaries adopted the Vision Statement by declaring the Bhurban Declaration (the “BD”) after developing an Action Plan for Environmental Justice, G overnance, the Rule of Law and Sustainable Development in SAARC countries. The outcome of the Conference, which is the “BD”, is to strengthen specialized Environmental Tribunals and establish Green Benches, where they exist and consider establishing them where they do not exist . Therefore, the Hon’ble Chief Justices established the Green Benches in the Supreme Court and the High Courts under the respective Supreme Court and High Court Rules to hear the environmental cases similar to the other South Asian countries. 16. It is pertinent to mention here that the Respondents have totally negated the Petitioner’s version by stating that they have obtained all requisite approvals/NOCs and no violation of the Supreme Court’s directions has occurred. The record is also totally s ilent as to whether the Petitioner has raised his grievance before the proper forum(s) at the time of aforesaid approvals. Therefore, when the Respondents have obtained all the necessary approvals/NOCs and paid the requisite fee, therefore, vested rights have accrued in their favour and now its withdrawal without any solid reason at this advance stage of the Project, would not only cause irreparable loss but would also against the principle of Promissory Estoppel developed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Gadoon Textile Mills and 814 others versus WAPDA and others (1997 SCMR 641 ). Furthermore, Article 4 of the Constitution provides that it is an inalienable right of every citizen to be treated in accordance with law and no action 12
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
detrimental to his/her life, liberty, reputation or property shall be taken except as per law; and due to interference by this Court, the Petitioner’s fundamental right of business & trade as enshrined under Article 18 of the Constitution will badly be infringed. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the judgment reported as M.C.R. (Pvt) Ltd, franchisee of Pizza Hut versus Multan Development Authority and others (2021 CLD 639), wherein this Court has highlighted the scope of Article 18 of the Constitution, relevant portion of which is reproduced hereunder:- “28. Undoubtedly freedom of trade, business and commerce is a fundamental right guaranteed under Arti cle 18 of the Constitution which states that every citizen shall have the right to enter upon any lawful profession or occupation, and to conduct any lawful trade or business. One of the basic purposes behind provision of this fundamental right is certainly to advance culture of socio-economic progress and to protect and promote business and trade activities and, at the same time, to encourage simplification of the process of establishing and carrying out new business ventures throughout the country because activities of business and trade create opportunities for the masses around and provide job options, financial stability and progress in the area. 29. Since the Pizza Hut is an international chain and entered into lease agreement with WASA, it is the duty of the Courts in Pakistan to see the rights of the parties and to protect their interest in order to build confidence of investors in Pakistan but at the same time the interest of government functionaries has also to be examined regarding financial interest of the Government.The learned Civil/Commercial Court is, therefore, directed to decide the case expeditiously but not later than 60 days from the receipt of copy of this judgment in accordance with law.” 13
W.P.No.2371 of 2024
17. In view of the above discussion although the apprehension raised by the Petitioner regarding possible environmental impact of the Housing Project, including cutting of trees and disturbance of ecol ogical balance, cannot be brushed aside altogether, as environmental protection and sustainable development are recognized and protected under the constitutional and statutory framework of the country but at the same time, it is equally evident from the record that the Petitioner has not approached the relevant statutory foras at the appropriate stage, particularly at the time of issuance of requisite approvals/NOCs, nor has he challenged the same before the competent authorities in accordance with the mech…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.