Aaj TV News

BR100 4,745 Increased By ▲ 28 (0.6%)
BR30 20,798 Decreased By ▼ -42 (-0.2%)
KSE100 45,541 Increased By ▲ 41 (0.09%)
KSE30 17,844 Increased By ▲ 19 (0.11%)
COVID-19 TOTAL DAILY
CASES 1,266,826 622
DEATHS 28,328 16
Sindh 466,750 Cases
Punjab 438,433 Cases
Balochistan 33,149 Cases
Islamabad 106,571 Cases
KP 177,132 Cases

Supreme Court rejects review plea against demolition of Nasla Tower

22 ستمبر 2021
The SC ordered the Karachi commissioner to follow the apex court orders issued earlier. File photo
The SC ordered the Karachi commissioner to follow the apex court orders issued earlier. File photo

The Supreme Court on Wednesday rejected a review plea against demolition of Nasla Tower and ordered the Karachi commissioner to follow the apex court orders issued earlier related to the case and present the report.

The case was heard under Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed supervision in the SC Karachi registry.

The lawyer representing Nasla Tower said construction of buildings was approved after cancellation of lease, therefore the issue should be reviewed. He added that it was inappropriate to demolish the whole building.

During the hearing, Justice Aijazul Ahsan gave the example of an order in which a building in Lahore was demolished despite the fact that only an illegal floor of the structure causing its foundations to be enfeebled.

The lawyer representing allottees of the building requested his arguments should be heard. On the comments, Justice Ahsan remarked that he had been given a solution and he would get the amount of the structure according to the market value.

Justice Ahsan said how could the lawyer purchase the property without investigating about the plot, keeping in mind fraudulent activities.

The court asked the lawyer to show him the lease, on which the lawyer said it was allotted by Sindhi Muslim.

Justice Ahsan told the lawyer that he couldn't prove the title and how could Sindhi Muslim allot the plot when it had no authority to authorize the lease.

The Supreme Court justice raised question over extension of the plot to 1,044 yards when the original area was 780 yards only. He also mentioned that the service road had been completely occupied.

The lawyer said it was wrong to accuse constructions on the service road before observing the area whether it had encroachments or not.

Justice Gulzar said the decision to demolish the building was taken after reviewing all the documents.