By Ali Imran
ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court (IHC) on Thursday declared the administrative ban on the sale, purchase and transfer of land in Shah Allah Ditta, Sarai Kharbuza and Sangjani illegal, ruling that citizens’ property rights could not be curtailed through executive orders issued without legal authority.
Justice Muhammad Asif issued the detailed judgment in a petition filed by Fazal Abbas, who was represented by advocate Kashif Ali Malik.
The court directed the authorities to process property registration and transfer matters strictly in accordance with the law and prescribed procedures. It observed that the government’s efforts to curb illegal housing schemes could not be used as a pretext to deprive law-abiding citizens of their constitutional property rights.
The judgment held that the blanket restriction imposed on the basis of a letter issued by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) had no legal basis. It further ruled that verbal instructions issued by the Deputy Commissioner Islamabad to sub-registrars and revenue officials were unlawful and beyond the scope of the law.
The court noted that the administration had misinterpreted an earlier High Court order, which was limited to preventing the development and sale of illegal housing schemes and did not authorize a general freeze on property transfers.
Justice Asif observed that executive authorities were bound to implement judicial orders as issued and could not modify or expand them through administrative directions. The judgment stated that neither the CDA Ordinance, 1960, nor the Islamabad Zoning Regulations, 1992, empower the Deputy Commissioner to freeze private property transactions.
The court further held that any administrative action affecting constitutional rights must have a clear legal basis. It ruled that a complete ban on property transfers violated Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution, which guarantee citizens the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property.
The judgment criticized the authorities for imposing restrictions on all residents instead of taking action against actual violators, describing the measure as discriminatory. It emphasized that enforcement against illegal housing schemes should adopt the least restrictive approach to protect citizens’ fundamental rights.
Referring to the petitioner’s circumstances, the court noted that he was a permanent resident of Shah Allah Ditta and was unable to sell his property to meet the medical expenses of his mother, who was undergoing treatment for a kidney disease. The court observed that the freeze caused undue hardship and that the affected individuals were neither served notices nor given an opportunity to be heard.
The IHC clarified that its ruling did not prevent the CDA or other authorities from taking action against illegal housing schemes. It stressed that the relevant authorities possessed adequate powers under the law to enforce the master plan, implement zoning regulations and demolish illegal constructions, provided that all action was taken through due legal process.
