LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday sought replies from the Punjab government, city district government and the Walled City of Lahore Authority on a petition challenging construction of multi-storey buildings inside the heritage (walled city) area.

A resident of Kashmiri Gate, Asif Ali Mirza, filed the petition and submitted that construction of high-rises was rampant inside the Walled City in violation of the rules and by-laws.

The petitioner said his family had been living in the area for more than one hundred years.

He said his grandfather dedicated a property for religious purpose and a registered waqf deed was executed by his father in 1985.

Presently, the property was being used for holding Majalis-i-Aza and was waqf in the name of Qasar-i-Abbas (Imambargah), he said and added that the area was residential and not commercial.

The petitioner pointed out that some people purchased properties adjacent to the Imambargah and started construction of a multi-storey plaza without any sanctioned site plan and obtaining permission from the authorities concerned. He said the illegal construction also damaged the building of old Imambargah.

He pleaded the haphazard and unauthorised construction and commercial activities going on inside the Walled City were illegal and unconstitutional. He urged the court to direct the authorities to stop commercial activities and construction of high-rises inside walled city limits.

Justice Abid Aziz Sheikh heard initial arguments and directed the authorities concerned to submit their reply by March 20.

PTI’s poll plea: The Lahore High Court on Wednesday sought a reply from the Punjab government on a PTI petition against plan to appoint government servants as returning officers in the upcoming local government polls.

PTI Punjab head Ijaz Chaudhry filed this petition and assailed Section 22 of the Punjab Local Government Act 2013 pleading that the government introduced an amendment to the new law to appoint any government employee RO in the LG polls.

At the start of Wednesday’s hearing, the petitioner’s counsel presented a notification of the enforcement of the PLGA.

He argued that under the Constitution the power to appoint ROs fell within the domain of the election commission. He said the government by amending the Act violated the Constitution only to manoeuvre LG polls through government servants.

The counsel asked the court to strike down the impugned section of the PLGA 2013 for being contrary to the Constitution.