ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has set aside the judgment of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) that declared the allotment of 8,068 acres of land to the Pakistan Army in Islamabad’s National Park area illegal. It held that the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by deciding issues pending in a civil court.
The eight-page order, authored by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi in the Monal Restaurant case, also quashed the Supreme Court judgment upholding the IHC judgment as well as the subsequent revision judgement.
The FCC noted that the IHC had ventured beyond the bounds of its constitutional jurisdiction while the IHC was hearing a preliminary matter.
“The High Court, while exceeding the limits of its jurisdiction, proceeded to adjudicate the entire dispute pending before the Civil Court.
“[It] rendered a final decision by finding that the Remount, Veterinary and Farms Directorate, General Headquarters, QMG Branch, Rawalpindi (RV&FD), lacked jurisdiction and authority to execute the 2019 agreement with the respondent (Monal Group) and by declaring the said agreement to be null and void.”
In its earlier judgement, authored by the then IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, the high court had held that RV&FD’s claim of over 8,068 acres of land within the notified Margalla Hills National Park violated the Islamabad Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, read with Ordinance, 160 and Capital Development Authority, 160 Masterplan.
The IHC had also held that RV&FD had no legal authority to execute the September 30, 2019 agreement with Monal Restaurant.
In the same judgement, the IHC had observed that the Pakistan Navy had illegally encroached on state land, including notified national park, by establishing a golf course outside the allotted sector E-8.
The detailed IHC judgment had further held that the Pakistan Army had neither the authority nor jurisdiction to directly or indirectly engage in business ventures outside its statutory mandate or claim ownership of government land, noting that any such activity required the express approval of the government.
The Supreme Court upheld the IHC judgment and a petition for review of that decision was dismissed. Subsequently, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) filed a revision petition against the Supreme Court judgment upholding the IHC judgment.
The FCC said where 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 judgment would not have been entered but for that error, the court is fully empowered to correct it if it would result in a miscarriage of justice.
“It is therefore concluded that the errors are glaring and obvious, found floating on the surface of the record and have a significant impact on the final outcome of the case,” the brief order states.
The court further noted that “justice is a virtue that transcends all barriers and that rules of procedure, technicalities or procedural formalities cannot be allowed to obstruct the administration of justice. Law must bend in favor of justice.”
