IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN 
 
 
 
Civil Appeal No.800 of 2011 
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24.10.2007 
passed by the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi 
Bench in Civil Revisions No. 420/2006 and 
430/2006) 
 
 
 
Mst. Yawar Azhar Waheed (decd.) thr. LRs. 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Appellant 
VERSUS 
Khalid Hussain etc. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… Respondents 
 
 
For the appellant: 
Ch. Abdus Sattar, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Asst: by Kh. Azhar Rashid, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M.S. Khattak, AOR (absent) 
 
For R-No.4:  
 
Sardar Muhammad Aslam, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
 
For R-No.5:  
 
Publication—N.R. 
 
Respondent No.6: 
N.R. 
 
Date of hearing:  
24.10.2017 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN, J.-  
 
  
 This appeal with the leave of the Court dated 5.8.2011 has 
been filed against the judgment and decree of the Lahore High Court, 
Rawalpindi Bench dated 24.10.2007 in Civil Revisions No.420 and 430 of 
2006.  
2. 
  
The brief description of the controversy is, that the 
respondents filed a suit for permanent injunction against the appellant 
CA 800/11 
2 
(now 
dead), 
represented 
by 
her 
LRs. 
with 
the 
plea 
that 
respondents/plaintiffs No.1 & 2 were owners in possession of House 
No.50 Harley Street, Rawalpindi Cantt., while other respondents were 
owners in possession of residential houses No.53, 54-A and 50-A 
respectively.  
3. 
  
It is further averred in the plaint that plot No.16-B was 
transferred in favour of one Major Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman Khan, who sold the 
same through registered sale deed No.148, book No.1, volume No.163 (at 
page 103), registered with Sub-Registrar, Rawalpindi on 17.1.1998 to the 
appellant. They further alleged that under the law and rules and the 
condition of original transfer letter issued by the Cantonment Board, 
Rawalpindi to the said Major Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman was to build a 
residential house on the plot however, after purchase of the plot through 
registered deed measuring 3-k, 6-M and 44 Sq.ft., situated in Harley 
Street, Housing Scheme, Rawalpindi Cantt, the condition imposed was 
intriguingly deleted without approval of the competent authority.   
4. 
  
Subsequently erection of commercial building was planned 
by the appellants on the plot, which was re-numbered 54 and in blatant 
violation and utter disregard of Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 
1937 framed under the Cantonment Board Act, 1924 [hereinafter 
referred to as “the Act”] and also section 179 and other relevant 
provisions of the Act ibid, the Board granted approval to the proposed 
erection of commercial building for running a school.  
5. 
  
Keeping in view the registered covenant the conversion of the 
plot from residential to commercial was in violation of the master plan 
and the rules, therefore, the suit was instituted in the Court of Civil 
Judge, Muhammad Iqbal Haral, which was dismissed on 2.12.2003.  
CA 800/11 
3 
Aggrieved by that, respondents filed appeal before the learned District 
Judge, who accepted the same on 24.12.2003 and remanded the case to 
the Trial Court after recasting certain issues with direction to decide it 
afresh however, the High Court in Civil Revision Petition set aside the 
order vide judgment dated 28.10.2004 and sent the case back to the 
District Appeal Court for decision on merits. After remand, the appeal 
was allowed on 15.4.2006.  
6. 
  
This time the appellant feeling aggrieved, filed a revision 
petition mentioned above while cross revision petition was also filed by 
the respondents with regard to certain observations of the District Appeal 
Court. The revision petition filed by the appellant was dismissed through 
consolidated judgment impugned herein and the suit of the respondents 
was decreed.  
7. 
  
From the evidence on record, the provision of the Act, the 
Cantonment Land Administration Rules, 1937 and the master plan, 
prepared initially are the deciding factors, therefore, in light of that we 
have to proceed and see whether those were violated or not? 
8. 
  
The Cantonment Boards like any Local Government, 
Provincial Government or the Federal Government are bound by the law, 
rules, bylaws and the Constitution as well as the State obligation being 
signatory to the conventions signed by it and by other members of the 
UNO, therefore, the Cantonment Board under no circumstance could be 
an exception to that.  
9. 
  
Under the provision of section 179 of the Act and the 
Administration of Cantonment Property Rules and more particularly the 
master plan, initially prepared and published for general information of 
CA 800/11 
4 
the public, containing all the facilities, required under the law and the 
rules for the residential areas, for which the Cantonment Housing 
Scheme was established, separate area was allotted for parks, public 
lavatories, disposal of refuse, animal slaughtering houses and allied 
facilities besides establishment of educational institutions by the 
Cantonment Board, to be run and managed by it, however, with the 
passage of time, the cursing greed to generate fund throwing the fate of 
the residents of the posh area to dusty wind, it allowed at random the 
commercialization of the residential area as is evident from the parawise 
comments without any hesitation to think and take a pause, submitted 
by the Cantonment Board in this case. The way it has acted in support of 
the appellant’s case extending undue favour in violation of law and rules 
to the prejudice of the comfort and welfare of the residents of the 
residential area, it threw weight behind the appellants, to perpetuate 
illegality, an act to be deprecated and to be condemned because 
Cantonment Board has become a shopping spree by commercialization of 
the residential area seriously violating the master plan, the law, rules 
and the Constitution. This approach of the Cantonment Board on no 
premises, much less legal one can be approved.  
10. 
  
If the entire scheme of the ‘Act’ is seen, extra care has been 
taken of the residents of each Cantonment, even for every facility to be 
provided and violation thereof has been made punishable under the law 
to ensure the peaceful, calm and healthy living atmosphere for the 
residents however, each and every Cantonment in violation of its 
statutory duty and constitutional obligation with a greed to generate 
fund is rapidly converting the residential areas into commercial one, 
which is absolutely illegal being in blatant violation of the law and also 
CA 800/11 
5 
against the master plan, initially designed and made public for that 
purpose.  
11. 
  
Any housing scheme by the Cantonment Board when is 
shown in the master plan with all necessary facilities to be provided like 
parks, playgrounds, public drinking water facilities, filtration of water for 
drinking purposes and establishment of its own educational institutions, 
the public was attracted, particularly, the officers from the Army and 
other Forces to purchase the plot so that they might live a honourable 
life with dignity and peace of mind.  
12. 
  
In the instant case, the plot was initially allotted to Major 
Ishtiaq-ur-Rehman with a condition squarely mentioned in the allotment 
letter that it shall be used only for residential purpose and no other 
purpose however, this condition was deleted from the registered sale 
deed through which the plot was purchased by the appellants’ 
predecessor-in-interest, namely Mst. Yawar Azhar Waheed (deceased).  
13. 
  
It is shocking that Cantonment Board approved the erection 
of new building for commercial purposes i.e. to run a school with 
hundreds of children, thus, conveniently ignored the initial condition 
imposed by itself that the plot shall not be used for any other purpose 
except residential house. The sanction was accorded blind-foldedly 
through third degree tactics without the sanction of law.  
14. 
  
Once the master plan is notified and it is accepted by the 
purchaser of the plot and the Board accepts the offer of purchaser and 
allots the plot, thereafter, the Cantonment Board is left with no authority 
to bring changes in the master plan, designed for the housing scheme 
CA 800/11 
6 
unilaterally because a binding contract came into existence in such 
eventuality.  
15. 
  
Under the provision of the Act, even if a residential building 
is found overcrowded, the Board has the authority to issue a notice to 
the owner to reduce the crowd or to face the penalty.  
16. 
  
Right from the provisions of Chapter IX to Chapter XV the 
scheme of the provisions of the Act is directed to maintain cleanliness, 
proper sanitation, water supply and to take extra care of public health, 
security etc. however none of the Cantonment Boards within the country 
with exception of few, is abiding by this mandatory provision of law as 
well as the bylaws. The way the Cantonment Board through parawaise 
comments has illegally supported the cause of the appellant, would show 
that it is bent upon to violate the law to mint money and to generate 
funds but through illegal means. The present case is the classic example 
where the Cantonment Board in parawise comments without any 
hesitation has mentioned the operation of dozens of other schools and 
colleges in the area which too is required to be addressed and the 
Cantonment Board has to take action in this regard against the 
delinquent officers as to how these were sanctioned and were allowed to 
operate when it was basic obligation of the Cantonment Board to 
establish, manage and run its own educational institutions within the 
Cantonment limits and no private individual is to be permitted to operate 
and run such institutions.  
17. 
  
The appellant purchased the plot on the basis of the 
allotment order, issued to the original owner of the plot by the 
Cantonment Board and as stated above, there was a strict condition 
incorporated therein that the plot shall be used for erection of residential 
CA 800/11 
7 
building thereon however, the purpose of use was in blatant violation of 
law was converted by the Board to commercial house, while approving 
the building plan, the only motive behind it was to trample the law on 
the subject for money and financial benefits and for no other purpose. 
18. 
  
The respondents’ suit was fully justified because they are the 
residents of the same area situated at a little distance. If the school 
building is put into operation, hundreds of children would be brought in 
cars and other vehicles, for which there is no parking facility and even 
for the employees of the school, besides it would create massive pollution 
emitting carbon monoxide gas on daily basis. Drinking water 
consumption would increase manifold which is at present not even 
sufficient to meet the requirements of the residents of the area. 
Sanitation condition would be worsen because hundreds of children 
would definitely create multiple problems like pollution, garbage etc. The 
security of the area would be compromised in view of the prevailing 
condition in the country and the lives of the residents would be at stake 
as well.  
19. 
  
We have gone through the evidence both documentary and 
oral as well as the law on the subject and the one cited by the High Court 
in its impugned judgment and we do not see any reason much less 
plausible to interfere with the well reasoned judgment of the High Court. 
Therefore, this appeal is dismissed with costs.  
20. 
  
Copy of this judgment be sent to the Attorney General for 
Pakistan and Secretary Defence who shall ensure that all the private 
educational institutions i.e. schools, colleges, etc. constructed in the 
Cantonments and all the commercial buildings erected in residential 
areas of Cantonments throughout Pakistan shall be removed gradually, 
CA 800/11 
8 
having been constructed in violation of the law and rules as well as 
bylaws and the master plan and their original shape be restored.  
21. 
  
Periodical reports in this regard be submitted to the Court 
for our perusal in Chambers, until the process is completed otherwise 
this Court would be constrained to issue notice to the Secretary Defence, 
D.G. Cantonments as to why action under the law and rules shall not be 
taken against them.  
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
Islamabad, the  
24th October, 2017  
Nisar/* 
Approved For Reporting. 
  
  
