ISLAMABAD:
The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has set aside the judgment of the Islamabad High Court (IHC) which had declared the allocation of 8,068 acres of land to the Pakistan Army in the Islamabad National Park area illegal. It held that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by ruling on issues pending before a civil court.
The short eight-page order, written by Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi in the Monal Restaurant case, also set aside the Supreme Court judgment that upheld the IHC verdict, as well as the subsequent review judgment.
The FCC observed that the IHC, in hearing interlocutory proceedings, had ventured beyond the bounds of its constitutional jurisdiction.
“The High Court, while transgressing the limits of its jurisdiction, proceeded to adjudicate the entire dispute pending before the civil court.
“[It] rendered a final decision holding that the Remount Directorate, Veterinary and Farms, Headquarters, QMG Branch, Rawalpindi (RV&FD), did not have the competence and authority to execute the 2019 agreement with the respondent (Monal Group) and declaring the said agreement void and of no legal effect,” the court held.
In its earlier judgment written by the then IHC Chief Justice Athar Minallah, the High Court had ruled that the RV&FD’s claim over 8,068 acres of land in the notified Margalla Hills National Park violated the Wildlife (Protection, Preservation, Conservation and Management) Ordinance, 1979, read with the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960, and the Islamabad Master Plan.
The IHC had also held that the 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 the Pakistan Navy had illegally encroached on the state land, including the notified national park land, by establishing a golf course outside the allocated sector E-8.
The IHC’s detailed judgment had further ruled that the Pakistan Army had neither the authority nor the jurisdiction to directly or indirectly engage in commercial ventures outside its statutory mandate or claim ownership of state land, observing that any such activity required the explicit approval of the government.
The Supreme Court upheld the IHC judgment and a review petition against the decision was denied. Subsequently, the Capital Development Authority (CDA) filed a review petition against the Supreme Court judgment approving the IHC decision.
The FCC has stated that when a court is satisfied that an error identified in a petition for review arises from an erroneous assumption of fact or law, and that the prior judgment would not have been entered but for that error, the court has full authority to correct it if upholding it would result in a miscarriage of justice.
“It is therefore concluded that the errors are blatant and obvious, floating on the surface of the record and having a material bearing on the final outcome of the case,” the short order said.
The Court further observed that “justice is a virtue which transcends all barriers, and procedural rules, technicalities or procedural formalities cannot come in the way of the administration of justice. The law must bend to the aid of justice.”
