Pakistan Case Law← Search
2005 SCMR 1973

SAAD MAZHAR and others vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, Islamabad and others

Citation2005 SCMR 1973
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Constitutional Petition No, 26 of 2005
Date2005-10-21
Judge(s)Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry, Abdul Hameed Dogar, Hamid Ali Mirza,
ResultOrder accordingly

ORDER

' This petition under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan (hereinafter referred as "the Constitution") has been filed by the petitioners for the enforcement of their fundamental rights of life, liberty and property guaranteed under Articles 9, 14, 15, 23 and 24 of the Constitution.

2. Facts in brief, leading to filing of this petition, are that on 8th October, 2005 at 8-52 a.m. An earthquake of the magnitude of 7.6 Richter scale, jolted the Federal Territory, all cities and villages of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and N.-W.F.P., as a result whereof thousand people died and hundred thousand seriously injured, besides millions people have been left homeless. Similarly, due to this earthquake, the Margalla Towers, a ten storeyed building, collapsed, which resulted in heavy loss of life of residents and permanent disability of injured.

3. Petitioners, the affectees and previous owners/residents of said Towers, have instituted instant proceedings against Capital Development Authority (CDA), the Builders of the fallen structure and its Contractor, on the premises that despite repeated complaints of Magallah Towers, Islamabad, Residents Society (Regd.) to respondent No,1 (CDA), that building contains material defects which are imminent danger to the persons living in Towers, no action was taken by it to save and secure the life of the residents, as a result whereof the poor construction could not bear/have protection against the recent earthquake of such a high magnitude and the two towers of the building crumbled in seconds after the first jolt and resulted in loss of precious lives of Pakistanis and foreigners. That cracks in the building apparently were the result of substandard construction but respondents did not carry out requisite repairs and even the original owners of the building fails to attend to the dangerous defects. In the petition following prayers have been made:--

(1) That instant petition be accepted and appropriate directions be issued to the respondents to compensate the petitioners and affectees severally and jointly.

(2) That remedial relief to award compensation, interim compensation be granted and direction be issued to respondents to provide temporary accommodation till the matters are sorted out.

(3) That direction be issued to respondents to pay jointly and severally punitive damages for the loss of life and injuries caused to the victims.

(4) That a small Committee of Architects and Engineers be constituted to review Building Laws and make amendments to meet such situation and contingency.

4.We have heard Syed Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for petitioners at a considerable length. Prima facie, we are of the opinion that this petition involves substantial questions of public importance with reference to the enforcement of fundamental rights, guaranteed by the Constitution under Articles 9, 14, 15 23 and 24.

5. Malik Muhammad Nawaz, Advocate Supreme Court entered appearance on behalf of respondent No,1 and requested for time to file reply of the petition along with necessary documents. On our query, he informed that the Capital Development Authority (CDA) had established Camps to accommodate 148 families who have been displaced on account of earthquake, took place on 8th October, 2005.

6. A perusal of documents, so placed on record reveals that residents of Magalla Towers either were owners or tenants. They had paid considerably huge amounts for the purpose of purchasing the flats and some of them were paying quite handsome rent to the owners. They have been dislodged because of damage seems to have been caused to the building/towers due to earthquake, prima facie, on account of substandard construction under the supervision of CDA, therefore, we are of the opinion that it was the legal obligations of the CDA to provide them alternate accommodation till the time, the buildings, which they have vacated, are not reconstructed or some other arrangements are not made.

7. Thus, pending decision of petition for adjudication:--

(a) C.D.A. Is directed to provide accommodation temporarily to the displaced families of the Margalla Towers, by hiring residences of almost of equal status as they were occupying in the towers and if it is not possible, then a committee should be constituted who would work out within a period of three days monthly rent of each residence, which will be paid to them, so they may make arrangements of their accommodations.

(b) C.D.A. Is restrained from transferring/alienating the plots of the land on which the damaged/collapsed Towers are located in any manner.

(c) C.D.A. Is also directed to place on file complete record of the ownership of Margalla Towers, both the building and plot, to show whether the leasehold rights or ownership of the plot was given to the builders for the purpose of raising construction, along with approved plan by the competent authority and complete details of the officers/officials, who remained engaged in the approval of plan, construction of the towers, supervision of the same during process of construction and issuing certificate from time to time, expressing their satisfaction or otherwise with regard to the standard of the construction of the towers.

8. The Inspector-General of Police (Islamabad) is directed to appear and submit a comprehensive report, indicating the steps taken by him for causing the arrest of those persons, against whom a case, vide F.I.R. No,101 of 2005, had been registered at Police Station Shalimar, Islamabad.

9. Office is directed to issue notices to respondents Nos.2 and 3, through Deputy Commissioner, Islamabad. Notice to Attorney-General for Pakistan under Order XXVII-A, read with Rule 1, C.P.C. May also be issued, as interpretation of various provisions of the Constitution is also involved in this case.

' To come up on 28th October, 2005 for further hearing.

THE END

Cited by 6 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search