1. IJAZ NISAR, J.- Mr. Muhammad Iqbal and Mrs. Iffat Iqbal petitioners have challenged the order of Director General, Lahore Development Authority granting permission to Wedlock Banquet Hall respondent No. 2 to convert residential plot into commercial and for his failure to proceed against respondent No. 2 for the illegal conversion of a residential plot into commercial one.
2. 2 It is stated by the petitioners that they are residing in the house built on plot No. 9-Gulberg-V, Lahore. Plot No. 5/6-A, Gulberge-V, Lahore belonging to respondent No. 2 is adjacent to their house.
3. It is a residential plot. Respondent No. 2 without the permission of the petitioners, has converted the said residential plot into commercial property and is using it as a Marriage Hall under the name and style of "Wedlock Banquet Hall". The petitioners sent legal notices to the Director General, LDA pointing out the illegality committed by respondent No. 2 but with no result. Hence, this Constitutional petition, inter alia on the grounds that under Rule 96(4) of the Lahore Development Authority Building Regulations, 1984, no property abutting on Gulberg Road (Jail Road) can be converted into commercial property without the prior approval of the Director General, LDA except on the production of No Objection Certificate from the owners of adjoining properties and on payment of the prescribed fee. The petitioners, who are owners of the adjoining property of respondent No. 2, never gave N.O.C.To him for converting his residential property into commercial; that the petitioners are residing close to the property in question; that as the enjoyment of a right to their property is being violated, they have a right to maintain a Constitutional petition; that Regulation No. 96(4) of the Building Regulations, 1948, which is for the benefit of the owners of the adjoining properties, is being abused; that the conversion of residential plot into commercial property as the Marriage Hall is creating nuisance because respondent No. 2 continues music, drum beating etc. Till late hours of the night impairing'the peaceful enjoyment of the property and personal convenience of the petitioners. Moreover, the construction of the Marriage Hall amidst the residential area has created noise, air and environmental pollution.
4. In the wake of the above circumstances, the petitioners pray that the order of Director General, LDA in giving permission to respondent No. 2 for converting the residential plot into commercial was without any lawful authority and of no legal effect and if no said permission has been granted, the LDA be directed to take action against respondent No. 2 in accordance with the provisions of LDA Act, Rules and Building Regulations.
5. 3 In reply to the writ petition, Director General, LDA has stated that no commercialization/eonversion to Wedlock Banquet Hall was allowed to respondent No. 2. The factual position was that the Chief Minister, Punjab issued a directive bearing No. SO-III-CMS-AB- 29/93-265-125065, dated 19.6.1993 alongwith the application of Mr. Waqas Ahmad Mela regarding permission to operate a Banquet ' Hall at Plot No. 5/6, Service Road on Jail Road for three years which was approved by the Chief Minister, Punjab. The above directive could not be processed as commercialization policy had been introduced on 27.3.1993 which required the applicant to supply NO Cs from the adjoining neighbours before commercialization could be allowed. Since respondent No. 2 failed to supply the same, no commercialization was allowed. It is stated on behalf of Director General, LDA that legal action has been taken against the illegal conversion and that the case is pending in the Court of Senior Special Magistrate. It was categorically denied by the LDA that any permission was granted to respondent No. 2 for converting the residential plot into commercial.
6. 4 Respondent No. 2 contends that he was granted permission by the Chief Minister. Punjab to operate Banquet Hall on the premises in question. In support of It, he has produced a copy of the directive dated 19.6.1993 of Chief Minister which is as under:- Subject:- PERMISSION TO OPERATE A BANQU ET HALL AT SERVICE ROAD ON JAIL ROAD FOR THREE YEARS.
7. On presentation of the enclosed application, Chief Minister has been pleased to approve the case of Mr. Waqas Ahmad Mela keeping in view the fact that the site is located at a service road, apparently cause no traffic hazard.
8. Sd/-(ALI ARIF) ADDITIONAL SECRETARY.
9. 5 Respondent No. 2 has not denied the use of the premises in question as a Wedding Hall. His stand is based only on the directive of the Chief Minister. The LDA has clarified the position stating that no action could be taken on the above directive, as commercialization policy has been introduced prior to its issuance. According to the commercialization policy, the applicant was required to supply N.O.Cs.From the owners of the adjoining properties and on payment of the prescribed fee.
10. Respondent No. 2 had neither obtained N.O.Cs. From the owners of the adjoining properties nor paid commercialization fee to the LDA. In the absence of these formalities, how could he convert his residential property into commercial? He would not have been challaned for violation of Building Regulations if the directive of the Chief Minister has been given effect to. Rule 96 (4) of the LDA Building Regulations clearly states that "no property abutting on Gulberg Road (Jail Road) shall be converted into commercial property without the prior approval of the Director General, LDA on production of No Objection Certificate from the owners of adjoining properties and on payment of the prescribed fee."
6. From the circumstances discussed above, it is established that respondent No. 2 is utilizing the premises in question for commercial purposes in violation of the afore quoted Building Regulations of the LDA. The writ petition, therefore, succeeds and in consequence, the LDA is directed to take action against him in accordance with the provisions of the LDA Act, Rules and Building Regulations to immediately stop the illegal use of the property by respondent No. 2 and for protecting the rights and interest of the petitioners. Parties are left to bear their own costs.