ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday set aside the ban by the Capital Development Authority’s (CDA) blanket ban on the registration, transfer and mutation of properties in several areas of Islamabad, ruling that it had no legal authority to impose such restrictions.
Justice Muhammad Asif issued the ruling while allowing a petition challenging the administrative and verbal ban on the sale, purchase, registration and mutation of properties in the mouzas of Shah Allah Ditta, Sangjani, Sara-e-Kharbooza and other areas of Zone-III.
The petitioner, a permanent resident of Shah Allah Ditta, told the court that he owns ancestral property in the area and is the sole breadwinner of his family. He argued that he was unable to dispose of or transfer his property to meet household expenses and the medical needs of his elderly mother due to the restrictions imposed by the CDA.
According to the petition, the IHC had directed the CDA on November 30, 2023, to ensure that no construction relating to housing colonies was carried out in Zone-III and that property transactions undertaken for the purpose of developing illegal housing schemes be prohibited.
The petitioner contended that the court’s order was limited to preventing illegal housing schemes and did not authorize a blanket ban on all property transfers in Zone-III.
He further submitted that, following the court order, the CDA’s Director General (Building and Housing Control), through a letter dated December 1, 2023, requested the Deputy Commissioner of Islamabad to suspend the registration of sale deeds and attestation of mutations relating to properties in Zone-III, including the mouzas of Shah Allah Ditta, Sangjani, Sara-e-Kharbooza and Siri Saral.
The petition alleged that the deputy commissioner subsequently issued verbal instructions to sub-registrars and revenue authorities to halt all property transactions without issuing any statutory notification or written order.
The petitioner maintains that the said order was confined to transactions intended to facilitate illegal housing schemes and did not impose a blanket prohibition on all transfers of property in Zone-III.
As a result, the registration of genuine sale deeds and attestation of mutations between private individuals was suspended, even where the transactions had no connection with illegal housing schemes or unauthorized construction, the petitioner argued.
Counsel for the petitioner maintained that the CDA had unlawfully expanded the scope of the IHC’s 2023 order by imposing a blanket ban on all property transactions through administrative directions unsupported by any law, in violation of Article 4 of the Constitution.
In its judgment, the IHC observed that preserving Islamabad’s Master Plan, protecting environmentally sensitive areas and enforcing the Islamabad Capital Territory (Zoning) Regulations, 1992, are matters of significant public importance.
The court held that while the CDA has a statutory obligation to prevent unauthorized housing schemes and illegal construction, the legality of that objective does not justify measures that lack legal authority.
“Every executive action, irrespective of the object sought to be achieved, must remain within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and the governing statutory framework,” the judgment stated.
The court further held that an administrative authority implementing a judicial order cannot enlarge its scope or impose restrictions that were neither directed nor contemplated by the court.
“The function of an executive authority is to faithfully implement judicial directions and not to supplement or modify them through administrative instructions,” the judgment said.
The IHC noted that regulating land use is fundamentally different from suspending or extinguishing proprietary rights through an executive embargo.
“The power to regulate construction cannot automatically be construed as authority to prohibit every transfer of ownership between private individuals,” the court observed.
It further ruled that a complete ban on the registration and mutation of all properties across an entire geographical area imposes serious restrictions on property rights and cannot be sustained solely on the basis of administrative correspondence lacking statutory backing.
Rejecting the CDA argument that widespread illegal construction justified the embargo, the court said the authorities had chosen to impose an indiscriminate restriction on all landowners instead of taking action against actual violators.
“Such a generalized restriction bears no reasonable nexus with individual conduct and, therefore, cannot withstand constitutional scrutiny,” the judgment stated.
The IHC declared that the blanket administrative embargo imposed upon sale, purchase, registration and mutation of properties, without any statutory notification or lawful authority, is without lawful authority and of no legal effect as it prohibits bona fide transactions unrelated to illegal housing schemes or unauthorized change of land use.
About The Author
