ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has set aside the Islamabad High Court (IHC) judgment that declared the allotment of 8,068 acres of land to Pakistan Army in Islamabad National Park area illegal. He argued that the high court exceeded its jurisdiction in deciding issues pending before a civil court.
The brief eight-page order, written by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi in the Monal restaurant case, also set aside the Supreme Court judgment upholding the IHC verdict as well as the subsequent review judgment.
The FCC observed that the IHC, in hearing interlocutory proceedings, had ventured beyond the limits of its constitutional jurisdiction.
“The high court, transgressing the limits of its jurisdiction, proceeded to resolve the entire controversy pending before the civil court.
“[It] issued a final determination by holding that the Remounting, Veterinary and Farms Directorate, Headquarters, QMG Branch, Rawalpindi (RV&FD), lacked jurisdiction and authority to execute the 2019 agreement with the respondent (Monal Group) and declaring the said agreement null and void,” the court held.
In its earlier judgment written by the then IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, the apex court had ruled that the RV&FD’s claim over 8,068 acres of land within the Notified Margalla Hills National Park was in violation of the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, read with the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960. Islamabad.
The IHC also held that RV&FD had no legal authority to execute the September 30, 2019 agreement with Monal Restaurant.
In the same judgment, the IHC had observed that Pakistan Navy had illegally encroached on state lands, including notified National Park lands, by establishing a golf course outside the allotted Sector E-8.
The detailed judgment of the IHC had further held that the Pakistan Army had neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to directly or indirectly engage in commercial ventures outside its legal mandate or claim ownership of state land, observing that any such activity required explicit government approval.
The Supreme Court upheld IHC’s ruling and an appeal for review against that decision was dismissed. Subsequently, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) filed a review petition against the Supreme Court judgment upholding the IHC ruling.
The FCC said that when a court is satisfied that an error identified in a petition for review arose from an erroneous assumption of fact or law, and the prior ruling would not have been rendered but for that error, the court is fully empowered to rectify it if allowing it would result in a miscarriage of justice.
“It is concluded, therefore, that the errors are obvious and obvious, floating on the surface of the record and having a material relationship to the final outcome of the case,” the brief order states.
The court further observed that “justice is a virtue that transcends all barriers, and rules of procedure, technicalities or procedural formalities cannot be allowed to obstruct the administration of justice. The law must bend to the aid of justice.”
