KARACHI: Faced with severe criticism and legal challenges, the Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) has withdrawn its controversial decision to allow commercial use of residential properties in the city.

The information was submitted before a division bench of the Sindh High Court (SHC) hearing a set of petitions challenging the controversial amendments to the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations 2002 (KBTPR) by the SBCA.

Several petitions were filed in the SHC, impugning a notification issued by the SBCA on March 13, notifying various controversial changes in the KBTPR, including allowing commercial use of residential properties.

The petitioners had pleaded to declare the impugned amendments ultra vires to the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 (SBCO) and other relevant laws as well as without lawful authority and the SHC had issued notices to SBCA and other respondents with direction to file comments.

SHC disposes of eight petitions after building authority informs the court about the step

When the petitions came up for hearing on Thursday before a two-judge bench comprising acting Chief Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar and Justice Mohammad Abdur Rahman, a statement was filed at the outset of the hearing on the behalf of the director general SBCA, stating that the impugned notification had been withdrawn after review and reconsideration.

The SBCA also submitted a copy of the notification, issued on May 13, by DG SBCA Ishaq Khuhro, repealing the impugned notification issued on March 13.

The newly-issued notification says: “In exercise of the powers conferred under Section 21-A of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979, and all other enabling provisions in this behalf, and upon further review and reconsideration, the Sindh Building Control Authority is pleased to repeal with immediate effect, issued vide Notification No. SBCA/PS to DG/2025/18 dated 13th March 2025 of Karachi Building & Town Planning Regulations, 2002”.

Thereafter, the bench disposed of eight identical petitions after taking the comments and documents filed by the SBCA on record.

Initially, Mehdi Chagla, Kamal A. Chinoy, Zahid Hamid Maker, Majid Bashir Ahmed, Samir M. Chinoy, Khwaja Ahad Rahman and 15 other residents of Old Clifton had filed a petition against such changes in building rules and argued that the SBCA had abruptly and without any lawful authority amended the definition of various regulations of KBTPR by substituting the meaning of “amenity plot”, “commercial” and “residential uses”.

Thereafter, Leader of the Opposition in the City Council Saifuddin Advocate along with various other elected local government representatives of the Jamaat-i-Islami and Pasban Democratic Party chairman Altaf Shakoor had also filed identical petitions to challenge the amendments.

The Public Interest Law Association of Pakistan and the Pakistan Tehreek-i-Insaf had also approached the SHC, asking it to overturn such controversial amendments while Dar-us-Salam Cooperative Housing Society, Works Cooperative Housing Society and a regular litigant Tariq Mansoor Advocate had also filed similar petitions.

Citing secretary of the local government department, director general of the SBCA, Karachi Development Authority, Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, Sindh Master Plan Authority, Sindh Environmental Protection Agency and others as respondents, the petitioners had submitted that Regulation 19.2.1 earlier defined as “residential uses” had been recently amended by inserting a new definition of “recreation uses” which included activities, facilities and spaces that facilitate leisure, social interaction and community well-being.

They submitted that the impugned amendments will turn the residential areas of the city into commercial or semi-commercial localities, disturbing peaceful environment and causing mental agony to the residents and petitioners.

The petitioners maintained that this encompassed dining and social establishments such as cafes, food courts and similar venues, provided they contributed to the recreational and communal experience of the neighbourhood.

They also argued that such amendments were against the very definition of “residential uses” and would practically lead to conversion of a residential property into a commercial one without fulfilment of any requirements for change of land use as provided in the KBTPR, 2002.

They asserted that the preamble of the SBCO made it clear that the SBCA’s jurisdiction pertained to planning and construction of buildings, prices charged for disposal of buildings and plots by builders and demolition of dangerous buildings in the province while the conversion and usage of land came outside the scope of SBCA’s domain and solely rested with the land holding authorities being the KDA and KMC, etc.

The petitioners further maintained that the SBCA had deprived the government of billions of rupees in revenue, which was otherwise to be recovered through conversion fees and charges and the impugned amendment was a backdoor attempt at high-density or mixed-use conversion without formally declaring zones under the Sindh High Density Development Board Act, 2010.

They submitted that the changes in question had opened a gateway to take great bribes and illegal gratification against the permission for conversion of residential spaces into commercial properties.

They also submitted that such changes cannot be sustained as the parent law did not provide for any such authority either to the SBCA or the master plan department and such amendments amounted to permitting a radical and abrupt change in the zoning regulations/master plan of the entire city to the detriment of all residents.

The petitioners had further maintained that besides the SBCO and other relevant laws, the impugned regulations were also contrary to the fundamental rights of citizens and, therefore, pleaded to set them aside.

Published in Dawn, May 16th, 2025