ISLAMABAD: The Supreme Court on Thursday restored the Parkview Housing Society Islamabad’s suspended No Objection Certificate (NOC) and also suspended the order to file a case against Parkview.
A three-member SC bench headed by Chief Justice Umar Ata Bandial heard the case.
During the course of proceedings, the court in its order sent the matter related to the land of Parkview Society to the chairman Capital Development Authority (CDA) and ordered him to review the facts of the land and submit a report.
The Chief Justice asked why the CDA was not paying compensation to the victims?
He said that CDA’s billions of rupees were being spent on the roads of Islamabad. The roads were so wide that even a plane can land in Islamabad but the victims of 1960s of Islamabad were still not being paid, he added.
He said that it was suo motu to act in public interest which was not the jurisdiction of the High Court.
The lawyer of CDA said that the victims had filed an application for registration of case against the occupation of the lands.
He said that CDA was not bound to give land to Parkview for road. If it awarded land to Parkview, every society would demand for land, he added.
He said that the CDA would issue NOC if Parkview bought land and built a road.
Justice Ayesha Malik remarked that the victims had also filed a civil case. She asked how civil litigants could file a constitutional petition in the high court.
Advocate General Islamabad told the court that Parkview had occupied the land.
Syed Ali Raza, the lawyer of Parkview, said that the advocate general was reading the old report of the deputy commissioner, the land owned by Parkview was 7870 kanals while the possessed land was 5745 kanals. Parkview had also given 600 kanals of land to CDA, he added.
He said 30 houses, a mosque and a shrine had been built on the land on which it was asked to build a road.
The Supreme Court sent the matter back to the Chairman CDA and suspended the earlier orders regarding the cancellation of the NOC and the registration of the case.
Subsequently, hearing of the case was adjourned for one month.
