The Lahore High Court (LHC) on Tuesday ordered the district administration to immediately vacate the site of Khokhar Palace and restrained the authority from any further action.
LHC Chief Justice Muhammad Qasim Khan also directed the law officer to assist the court regarding the question of the property being demolished despite a stay order from the civil court.
The province’s top judge issued the verdict after hearing a plea filed by Khokhar brothers – MPA Malik Saiful Malook and MNA Malik Muhammad Afzal Khokhar – both belonging to Pakistan Muslim League-Nawaz (PML-N).
The petitioners had challenged the demolition despite an interim stay order granted by the civil court. The court suspended the action taken on Lahore deputy commissioner’s January 18 order, cancelling the lease of land on which the demolitions were carried out.
Furthermore, the court asked both the parties to approach the civil court for a settlement and ordered the local and provincial administration to not interfere in the petitioner’s civil matter till the court has issued a final verdict on it.
Around 13 shops and several temporary huts were demolished, on January 24, by the Lahore Development Authority (LDA) in a bid to recover 45 kanals of land. The officials claimed that out of 177 kanals, only 131 kanals of land was owned by the Khokhars. The law officer contended that the petitioners had illegally constructed the property on the state land.
Earlier, the petitioners through their counsel implored that the civil court had granted them stay but the government still demolished the property against the norms of the law. They contended that they are the lawful owners of the land measuring 177 kanals and six marlas.
They said that all the purchased property is through registered deeds that have not been challenged so far, and are still legally intact. The property, they added, is with specific khasra numbers showing full specifications of the property.
The petitioners maintained that they applied for sanction of the building plans and, after the completion of all the formalities and submission of requisite fees, Tehsil Municipal Administration (TMA) approved nine building plans.
Later, they completed the construction as per the approved plans, without even a single infirmity or irregularity.
In 2016, Khokhar brothers said, they applied for the approval of four other building plans to the LDA, which were also approved under all legal formalities.
In 2018, in a suo muto proceeding against the petitioners, no irregularity or illegality was found in the ownership of the stated properties. When a respondent member of the revenue board issued a notice they challenged it in the civil court and were granted interim stay. But even after the stay order, the LDA issued notices to demolish the properties.
Later, the owners approached the LHC that restrained the LDA from taking any adverse action against the structure and directed the civil court to decide the case within seven days after hearing both parties.
Subsequently, the member of the revenue board issued notices to demolish the property on the basis of a letter of Additional Deputy Commissioner Revenue (ADCR), whereby it was reported that the petitioners’ possession didn’t match the ownership record, based on the cancellation of the submitted building plans.
The Khokhar brothers challenged the order as well as the cancellation of building plans by the TMA by filing two separate civil lawsuits in the civil court. They were granted a stay order, with the court restraining the TMA and district administration from demolishing, dispossessing from the possessions and interfering in them.
Despite the stay, on January 18, the respondent, additional commissioner consolidation/land commissioner cancelled the allotment of 153-kanal and 12-marla land, covering the possession of the petitioner Saiful Malook Khokhar.
It is pertinent to mention that the additional commissioner opened a 30-year old past transaction of the allotment which was already finalised in the form of civil petitions in the country’s top court. Later, a civil court suspended the order.
