KARACHI, Aug 3: A builder undertook on Thursday to demolish parts of his under-construction structure raised in violation of the building rules and the Sindh High Court dismissed his suit as withdrawn.
Zeeshan Shaikh moved the court for an injunction against the Karachi Building Control Authority which, he said, had razed parts of his building on plot number 205, Bahadur Yar Jang Co-operative Housing Society, and had threatened to demolish and trim it further. The court summoned the KBCA and asked to answer the allegation.
Besides a rejoinder, the authority submitted a ‘site report’ pinpointing the violations committed by the builder through its counsel, Shahid Jamil Khan. It said the plaintiff was given approval for a ground-plus-two-floor residential bungalow. He was allowed construction over 50 per cent of the 700-square-yard plot.
The remaining half was to be left uncovered in accordance with the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations. Open spaces were to be left on the sides and in the front and the rear.
The owner-builder, however, proceeded to cover about 75 to 80 per cent of the area of the plot despite KBCA warning at the very initial stage. He has altered the plan and has built eight flats on the first and second floors instead of a triple-storied one-unit bungalow.
Mrs Justice Qaiser Iqbal , who heard the plaint, remarked that instead of being hostile, the KBCA has been taking a lenient view of the violations and that the builder had hardly a case for a restraint order. The plaintiff sought to withdraw his suit and the court dismissed it as withdrawn.
A division bench, meanwhile, summoned a senior officer of the KBCA on Aug 10 explain why petitioner Arshad Abdullah’s plan for building a commercial complex on the five amalgamated plots on the confluence of the main Sharea Faisal and Tipu Sultan Road was not being sanctioned.
On an earlier petition moved by the petitioner, the court had ordered that plots and buildings on commercialized roads became commercial under the relevant notification and required no approval by the city district government or the KBCA for change of land use.
According to the city district government, the prescribed fee must be paid for commercialized premises by individual owners before a no-objection certificate could be issued for conversion of plots and buildings from residential to commercial. The KBCA said it needed a no-objection certificate from the city district government before proceeding to consider any plan for the construction of a commercial complex. The court, however, directed the KBCA to entertain the petitioner’s plan as no NOC was required from the city district government. An appeal against the order had been moved in the Supreme Court.
The builder, meanwhile, moved a contempt plea in the high court, saying that the KBCA was not complying with its order. In its reply on Thursday, the KBCA said it had already started processing the petitioner’s plan without demanding the city district government’s no-objection certificate as directed by the court.
The plan was found lacking in certain technical details and the KBCA had asked the petitioner to meet the objections.
The plan would be sanctioned if the objections were met by the builder. A division bench comprising Justices Sarmad Jalal Osmany and Maqbool Baqar summoned a senior KBCA officer for further clarification of the matters involved in the contempt plea.
APPEAL ALLOWED: Another division bench comprising Justices Syed Zawwar Hussain Jaffery and Rahmat Husain Jaferi acquitted an appellant convicted of drug trafficking and sentenced to 10 years’ rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs100,000 under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act.
According to the prosecution, Khaista Khan was caught carrying five packets of one kilogram heroin powder each in a Karachi-bound bus at Kandiaro. He was arrested and brought to Karachi where he informed the investigation officer that he was to deliver the contraband to Ataullah.
Both were tried by a special anti-narcotics court, which sentenced them to 10 years’ RI and Rs100,000 fine each.
Ataullah challenged his conviction and punishment through Advocate Shaukat Hayat while Khaista Khan preferred no appeal.
The counsel argued that the only evidence against the appellant was uncorroborated statement of the main accused (Khaista Khan). There were material discrepancies in the depositions of the prosecution witnesses.
The appellate bench set aside the appellant’s conviction and ordered his acquittal and release if not wanted in another case.
