' MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN KASI, C.J.--- Penalty of Rs,5-Lac was imposed upon the petitioner vide Order-in-Original dated 08.05.2007 due to non confirming use of his residential house bearing No,1673, Street No,17, I-10/1 Islamabad, by Deputy Commissioner CDA-respondent No,2.
2. Petitioner's case is that he came to know of afore-stated order on 23.10.2013 when he contacted CDA for transfer of subject house in the name of one Muhammad Tariq. He, then filed an appeal before Deputy Commissioner ICT-respondent No,1 but it was dismissed vide order dated 23.12.2013, inter alia, for the reasons that same was hopelessly time barred; reasons are without any substance and that he failed to substantiate his stance of leasing out the house to one Zahid Mehood from 2001 to 2012.
3. His review against the order-in-appeal was also dismissed on 05.06.2015 where-after he filed present constitution petition assailing three orders mainly on the ground that he has been condemned unheard; was away to UK till 2013 and was not served properly before imposing the penalty.
4. Learned counsel for CDA, on the other hand, repelled the above submissions. It was his stance that petitioner was afforded full opportunity of hearing in appeal but failed to substantiate his version. House in question was found in use as a School where-after by following due procedure, penalty was imposed which does not warrant any interference.
5. Record is evident of the fact that petitioner is owner of said house and vide order-in-original penalty of Rs,5-lac was imposed upon him due to its non-confirming use as School. Subsequently, after lapse of more than five years, he filed an appeal against the said order but it was dismissed.
Petitioner has failed to adduce any document whereby it could be ascertained that he was abroad till passing of the impugned order and thereafter till the year 2013 when he filed appeal. Admittedly, he is owner of the house and there is nothing on record to support his contention of leasing out the same to anyone on rent since 2001. The contention of the learned counsel that petitioner was not provided the opportunity of hearing is devoid of force and contrary to record as all of his grounds were considered and appreciated by the learned Appellate Court as reveals through Para-4 of the order dated 30.12.2013.
6. In view of above, petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed.