Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: MEHFOOZ YAR KHAN VS Respondent: KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY, KARACHI and another
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Munib Ahmed Khan, Syed Pir Ali Shah Title:MEHFOOZ YAR KHAN vs KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY, KARACHI
and another Case No.: Civil Petition No . D-720 of 2005 Date of Judgment:2008-02-06 Reported As: 2010 YLR 119 Result: Petition allowed Judgment ORDER The question involved in this petition is for use of Flat No,A-1, 1B Apartment, Block-S, Clifton, Karachi for commercial purpose. The petitioner has challenged the same on the ground that entire project is for residential purpose while use of this flat is causing severe hindrance in all respect, including privacy. A Mr. Rehman Aziz Malik submits that the flat has been regularized under Regulations No .3-2-21-1(b) from residential to commercial and that has been done by Master Plan Department CDGK and since the CDGK has acted under the law which is exclusively for the KBCZ, therefore, for the purpose of interpretation of that law Amicus Curiae Mr. Abdul Rehman was required to assist the court. ' After hearing the arguments, it appears that CDGK has incorrectly acted under the law of KBCA. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed candidly submits that CDGK itself is considering the matter and to do away regularization, while Mr. Shahid Jamiluddin submits that CDGK has no power to act under KBCA regularization. Mr. Abdul Rehman Amicus Curiae submits that basic violation has been done, as the regularization pointed out under the above regularization cannot be taken towards change of use and at the most it can be helpful towards change of slight use but in the instant matter entire nature of the use has been changed which is causing injuries to the residents therefore, it cannot be permitted. ' Mr. Rehman Aziz Malik submits that although the flat has been regularized for commercial purposes but it was used for commercial purpose for some time but after injunction order it has not been used and lying vacant. He further submits that even under sub-lease he can use such flat for any purpose. The contention of the learned counsel has no force as apparently the submission
---
## Page 2
of learned counsel for CDGK and KBCA as well as Amicus Curiae seems to be correct as the change of use can only be permitted by MPGO under SLGO, while CDGK has illegally resorted to the KBCA regularization to which it has no power. In such a situation, the permission granted by CDGK for commercial use of Flat A-1 is not legal and is recalled. The petition is allowed to the extent that the said flat is used for residential purposes.