' Briefly stated the relevant facts are that Dr. Miss Hajira Abdullah and Dr. Miss Sajida Abdullah etc. Petitioners are residents of Bungalow No,2-A/E-11, Stadium Road, Gulberg-III, Lahore while Madam Noor Jehan respondent No,3 is a resident of House No,3/E-II, Gulberg-III, Lahore.
' According to the petitioners-both the houses abut on Stadium Road, Lahore. Madam Noor Jehan made an effort to get her plot declared as commercial by the Lahore Development Authority. The petitioners objected to it on which the L.DA. Informed them on 8-12-1984 that the request for commercialization of the respondent's plot will not be considered if her request was not accompanied by No-Objection Certificates' from the immediate neighbours. But they learnt through a news-item in the press, dated 30th August, 1994 that plot of Madam Noor Jehan had been commercialized by the L.DA. They also learnt that she had entered into negotiations with an Insurance Company for the sale of her plot for constructing a multi-storey building thereon. They maintain that construction of plaza on Stadium Road, Gulberg-III, Lahore would be detrimental to their interests and residents of the area. According to them, as per Building Regulations of the Lahore Development Authority, buildings on Gulberg Road, Main Boulevard in Gulberg, New Garden Town, New Muslim Town, Allama Iqbal Town and other areas could be subjected to change of use from 'residential' to 'special commercial' subject of prior approval of the Director-General to be granted by him only on production of No-Objection Certificate' from the owners of adjoining properties and on payment of such fees as were to be prescribed from time to time, but in violation of the aforementioned Regulations the Lahore Development Authority permitted conversion of residential plot No,3/E-II, Stadium Road, Gulberg-III, Lahore into 'special commercial' for constructing a multi-storey commercial-cum-residential plaza.
2. Challenging the orders of the Lahore Development Authority the petitioners have filed this Constitutional petition on the ground that Building Regulation No,96, which empowers the Director- General, L.D.A. To grant approval to convert residential plots into commercial plots on the Main Boulevard, is violative of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975, that the construction of multi- storey commercial building by the transferee of Plot No,3/E-II, Stadium Road would cause great hardship to them, that the action of the Lahore Development Authority is mala fide, against law and facts and is violative of the object, spirit and the provisions of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975. Lastly, it is contended that the permission had been secured by Madam Noor Jehan respondent by exercising political influence. A prayer has been made to declare the action of the L.DA. As illegal, without lawful authority and without jurisdiction.
3. The respondents have contested the petition. According to the L.DA. The Governor, Punjab had acceded to her request to allow commercialization of the plot in question in 1981, subject to certain conditions and on payment of prescribed fee. As she failed to pay the commercialization fee, the permission was withdrawn in 1983. She again made a request in 1984 but was deferred due to non- supply of No-Objection Certificates' from the owners of the adjoining plots because by that time new Building Regulations had been enforced, containing a condition of obtaining No-Objection Certificates' from the adjoining plot owners. She reiterated her request but her application was kept pending for the non-production of No-Objection Certificates' from the owners of the adjoining plots. She represented to the Lahore Development Authority that one of neighbours Mr. Jaffar petitioner No,4 was blackmailing her and was demanding cash or piece of land in consideration of the issuance of 'No-Objection Certificate'. She requested that being a well-known lady and having served the people of Pakistan during the Wars of 1965 and 1971 she deserved special treatment and requested that in recognition of her services the production of 'No-Objection Certificates' from the owners of the adjoining properties may be dispensed with. Her case was placed before the Commercialization Committee on 14-5-1994. The Committee agreed in principle to recommend the commercialization of her plot without 'No-Objection Certificates', subject to the approval of the Chief Minister, Punjab. A summary was sent to the Chief Minister in this behalf, who approved the same. They maintained that the commercialization was allowed in accordance with the policy of the L.DA. The competent authority was empowered to relax the condition of No-Objection Certificate' in cases where the neighbours refused to grant No-Objection Certificate'.
4. The Building Regulations, 1984 were framed by the Lahore Development Authority under section 45 of the Lahore Development Authority Act, 1975. Regulation No,96 declares the following areas to conform to the additional special control specified for each:-
(1) .............
(2) ............
(3)...............................
(4) Gulberg Road, Main Boulevard in Gulberg, New Garden Town, New Muslim Town and Allama Iqbal Town and other areas subjected to conversion of use."
As regards Gulberg Road, Main Boulevard in Gulberg, Regulation No,96(4) provides that properties abutting on these roads and elsewhere may be subjected to change of use from 'residential' to "special commercial' subject to prior approval of the Director-General, L.DA. Which may be granted by him only on production of 'No-Objection Certificates' from the owners of adjoining properties and on payment of such fees, as may be prescribed by it from time to time. As per assertion of the petitioner the disputed property of Madam Noor Jehan respondent abuts on the Stadium Road, Lahore which is not mentioned in the aforementioned regulation, meaning thereby that the condition of production of No-Objection Certificates' from the owners of adjoining properties would not be applicable to it. Furthermore, rule 98 permits the Director-General, L.DA. To allow relaxation of the Building Regulations in special cases. The relaxation was allowed by the Chief Minister on the recommendation of Director-General, L.D.A. Subject to the following conditions:-- "(1) Prescribed set-back of 30 feet will be provided at the front of the plot.
(2) That the coverage not exceeding 50% of the plot area shall be allowed on each floor.
(3) That only a three-storey building having maximum height of 38 feet above plinth level with a plot floor area ratio of 1:1.8 shall be allowed on the plot.
(4) That the building shall be constructed in accordance with the Building Regulations, 1984 and after getting the plan approved from the Competent Authority.
(5) That the entry and exit shall be provided only from the Stadium Road.
(6) That the doors and windows at the upper floors shall be arranged in such a way that privacy of the neighbours is safeguarded.
(7) That no encroachment out of the boundary of the property shall be allowed to be made on the right of way.
(8) That the green belt provided between the property under consideration and the roundabout will not be disturbed and no access will be allowed through this green belt.
(9) That the basement shall be constructed after leaving the mandatory open spaces.
(10)Since the plot with its total area of 10 Kanals, 13 Marlas and 75 sq.Ft. Is being allowed to be commercialized, its sub-division earlier allowed vide this Office Letters No,TPG-2127/285 dated 12-1- 1988 and No,TPG-2127/707 dated 8-5-1988, respectively stand cancelled and withdrawn.
(11)That the construction of building shall be started after getting the design of drainage approved from WASA.
(12)Parking space will be provided in accordance with the Building Regulations, 1984."
The above noted conditions are completely within the four corners of the Building Regulations and would fully protect the rights of the petitioners and if they feel that the Building plan submitted by the owner of the plot in dispute affects their privacy or easement rights, they can raise an objection in this behalf before the Lahore Development Authority at the time of the sanctioning of Building plan. The plot in question is admittedly situated in the vicinity of the current commercial zone and several plazas and high rising buildings are situate there.
5. Constitutional jurisdiction is always exercised in aid of justice and a person who invokes the discretionary jurisdiction, is required to satisfy the Court that the order sought to be set aside had occasioned some injustice to him. In the present case the petitioners have failed to show that the commercialization permission had done any injustice to them.
' The petitioners have failed to point out any illegality on the part of respondent in allowing commercialization of the property of respondent No,3. Hence no case is made out for interference by this Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed.