IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(ORIGINAL JURISDICTION) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE MIAN SAQIB NISAR 
MR. JUSTICE MUSHIR ALAM 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
 
 
C.M.A.No.3221/2012 in S.M.C.No.25/2009 
(Suo Motu action regarding cutting of trees for 
canal widening project Lahore) 
 
AND 
CRIMINAL ORIGINAL PETITION NO.96/2014 
 
 
Lahore Bachao Tehrik   
 
 
 
…Petitioner(s) 
VERSUS 
Dr. Iqbal Muhammad Chauhan etc.  
 
…Respondent(s) 
 
 
For the petitioner(s): 
(in Crl.O.P.96/2014) 
Mr. Aitzaz Ahsan, Senior ASC 
Mr. M. S. Khattak, AOR  
 
 
For L.D.A.: 
Kh. Haris Ahmed, Senior ASC 
Mr. Israr Saeed, Chief Engineer 
Mr. M. Rashid, Director (Legal) 
Mr. Raza Hassan Rana, Asstt. Director 
 
 
For Lahore Bachao Tehrik: 
Ms. Imrana Tiwana 
 
 
For the applicant(s): 
(in C.M.A.615/2015) 
Ch. Munir Sadiq, ASC 
 
 
For Environment Deptt: 
Mr. Nawaz Manik, Director (Law) 
 
 
Date of hearing: 
14.05.2015 
… 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.- These two matters have genesis 
and direct nexus with 14 km widening of the Lahore Canal Bank 
Road (Canal Road) on both the sides thereof. The Government of Punjab 
initiated a project for the above purpose and in the process had 
already widened a part of the road when Lahore Bachao Tehrik (LBT) 
submitted an application to the Hon’ble Chief Justice of Pakistan 
primarily asserting therein that the said widening would entail the 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 2 :-
cutting of trees on both the sides of the canal and the greenbelt area 
around the canal would be encroached which would result in 
environmental hazard. This project, thus, is violative of the 
fundamental rights set forth in the Constitution of the Islamic 
Republic of Pakistan, 1973, particularly the right to life. This 
application was treated as SMC No.25/2009 and vide judgment dated 
15.9.2011 (Judgment) reported as Cutting of trees for canal widening 
project, Lahore (2011 SCMR 1743) it was disposed of with certain 
directions, which shall be mentioned in due course of this opinion. 
2. 
 
We may like to mention at this juncture that for the 
purposes of ascertaining the effect of widening upon environment and 
other related issues raised by LBT, a Mediation Committee 
comprising of certain nobles of the city and experts was constituted 
(Mediation Committee). Such Committee had given its report which was 
accepted by the Government of Punjab, the applicant in toto while 
some objections were expressed by LBT thereto but only to the extent 
of permitting the Government to widen a part of the Canal Road. 
These objections seemingly were not endorsed by the Court and thus 
the afore-mentioned decision on the basis of the Mediation 
Committee report primarily is in the nature of a consent order. In this 
context this Court made certain directions in the said Judgment 
(paragraph 60) which reads as under:- 
“(i) The Bambawali-Ravi-Bedian (BRB) Canal and the 
green belt on both sides of the Canal Road (from 
Jallo Park till Thokar Niaz Beg) is a Public Trust. 
It shall be treated as Heritage Urban Park 
forthwith and declared so by an Act to be passed by 
the Assembly as undertaken by the respondent-
Provincial Government; 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 3 :-
(ii) Widening of the road on both sides of the Canal 
Bank shall be in accord with the report submitted 
by the Mediation Committee; 
(iii) Necessary corrections/modification of some of the 
underpasses on the Canal Road shall be carried out 
as suggested in the report of the Mediation 
Committee;  
(iv) Proper Traffic Management Program shall be 
made and given effect to; 
(v) 
Further improvement in public transport system 
shall be ensured; 
(vi) Where needed and as recommended by the 
Committee, re-engineering of the junctions along 
the Canal Bank would be undertaken; 
(vii) The service roads along certain part of the Canal 
Road shall be constructed/improved; 
(viii) Report of the Mediation Committee shall be 
implemented as agreed by the respondent-
Provincial Government in letter and spirit; 
(ix) Respondent-Provincial Government and TEPA 
shall ensure that minimum damage is caused to 
green belt and every tree cut would be replaced by 
four trees of the height of 6/7 feet and this 
replacement when commenced and completed shall 
be notified through press releases for information 
of general public, copies of which would be sent to 
the Registrar of this Court for our perusal; and 
(x) 
Elaborate measures/steps be taken to ensure that 
the Canal is kept clear and free of pollution. The 
steps should inter alia include throwing of liter and 
discharge of any pollutant in the Canal a penal 
offence. The Chief Secretary, Government of 
Punjab shall ensure that a comprehensive action 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 4 :-
plan is prepared in this regard by the concerned 
department and report is submitted to the Registrar 
of this Court within six weeks of the receipt of this 
judgment.” 
 
Through the instant CMA No.3221/2012 the Province of Punjab has 
sought a permission from this Court to allow further widening of the 
road, by utilizing some greenbelt and cutting of trees, whereas the 
Crl.O.P.No.96/2014 seeks an action against certain officials of the 
Province of Punjab who statedly have violated the above Judgment.  
3. 
 
It may be pertinent to mention here that for the purposes 
of the factual backdrop and for the points which were raised, dilated 
upon, discussed and resolved by this Court in the said Judgment, we 
do not intend either to reiterate the factual background or in any 
manner revisit the said Judgment on the basic points which were 
settled therein, particularly that the canal area (in dispute) is a public 
trust and that it cannot be used for any purpose other than public 
purpose. Besides that the area around the canal should be declared 
as a heritage park. These basically are the two salutary legal and 
factual aspects which were settled and resolved in this matter.  
4. 
 
Anyhow, now through the present application, the 
Government of Punjab claiming it to be a precautionary measure 
(because the case of the Government of Punjab is that it has the requisite permission to 
widen the Canal Road even within the letter and spirit of the Judgment) has sought 
permission from this Court for widening the Canal Road at certain 
points. The reason for the purposes of seeking permission is given in 
CMA No.3221/2012 and also has been supplemented by various 
documents submitted by the Government of Punjab in the course of 
the proceedings which have been taken into account by this Court. 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 5 :-
5. 
 
Learned counsel for the applicants, Khawaja Haris 
Ahmed, Sr. ASC, has stated that the Project for the widening of the 
Canal Road pertains to two sectors. One includes widening of road 
and construction of a 1.3 km long underpass at Chaubucha 
Interchange in the sector falling between Dharampura and 
Harbanspura to bring it in alignment with the rest of the Canal Road 
and for easy merger of traffic coming out from the underpass. 
Whereas, the second limb of the project is addition of a third lane in 
the sector falling between Doctor’s Hospital and Thokar Niaz Beg 
because of the acute difficulty faced in the merging of traffic from an 
already widened three-lane sector up to Doctor’s Hospital onto a 
narrower two-lane sector from there onwards. In both the cases, it is 
submitted, the need for widening/construction stems from the 
inevitable slowing down and congestion of traffic flow in these sectors 
and consequent emission of pollutants dangerous to the environment 
on either side of the canal, and to minimize noise pollution because 
of prolonged traffic jams or slowing down of traffic.  
With respect to the first half of the project, it has been argued 
that the same is in line with the recommendations of the Mediation 
Committee and the Judgment in light of Recommendations No.18(1) 
and 18(2) reproduced at pages 1771 and 1772 of the Judgment 
respectively. It is contended that review/re-visiting of the scope of the 
Judgment is not sought, rather a clarification to this effect is being 
asked for.  
 
With respect to the second segment of the project i.e. addition 
of a third lane on the Canal Bank Road in the sector from Doctor’s 
Hospital to Thokar Niaz Beg, it is submitted by the learned counsel 
for the applicant that though the same was ‘not recommended’ by the 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 6 :-
Mediation Committee, it was also not categorically prohibited. Per the 
report of the Mediation Committee, there was no need for addition of 
a third lane because in its view, the traffic congestion problem could 
be resolved through construction of service roads, improvement of 
earthen shoulder and development of alternate routes. It is the case 
of the applicant that consequent to the report of the Mediation 
Committee and the Judgment, steps had been taken to implement 
the aforementioned recommendations, however, none of these helped 
in easing the traffic congestion in this sector necessitating addition of 
a third lane to counter the grave bottlenecks and traffic congestions 
faced by the commuters on account of sudden transition from three-
lane traffic to two-lane traffic from Doctor’s Hospital onwards. It is 
submitted that since the rationale behind not recommending a third 
lane in this sector was to ease the traffic issues through alternate 
means, which (means) had proved futile, the addition of a third lane 
was 
in 
essence 
in 
consonance 
with 
the 
purport 
of 
the 
recommendations made by the Mediation Committee and the letter 
and spirit of the Judgment of this Court.  
 
Learned Counsel for the appellant has further submitted that 
the proposed project is neither violative of the provisions of the 
Lahore Canal Heritage Park Act, 2013 (Act) nor the Doctrine of Public 
Trust. Sub-sections (5) and (8) of section 3 of the Act imply that there 
may be certain contingencies necessitating use of some portion of the 
Heritage 
Park 
for 
construction 
or 
any 
other 
infrastructure 
development work which may be undertaken, subject however, to 
prior written permission from Parks and Horticulture Authority (PHA) 
which is to take into consideration the environment impact 
assessment of the proposed activity and in the instant case a go-
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 7 :-
ahead has been given to the project by the PHA as also the 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). With respect to the Doctrine 
of Public Trust, it is contended that as was declared in the Judgment 
of this Court, though the greenbelt on both sides of the Canal is a 
public trust, the same may be used for a public purpose and in the 
instant case easing traffic congestion for the benefit of the public 
serves such a purpose.  
 
Lastly, it is contended that since public interest litigation 
proceedings under Article 184(3) are inquisitorial, rather than 
adversarial in nature (PLD 2013 SC1; PLD 2013 SC 501; PLD 2012 SC 664; PLD 2011 SC 
997) and the purport of exercise of powers under said Article is to 
protect fundamental rights of the citizens, such a power is not limited 
by any technicalities. Reliance has been placed on judgment reported 
as PLD 2015 SC 50 to submit that a judgment that impacts the 
fundamental rights of the citizens or public good may be re-visited 
under 
Article 
184(3) 
and 
it 
is 
therefore 
prayed 
that 
the 
widening/construction as envisaged in the Project may be allowed 
specifically when it also falls within the scheme of the report of the 
Mediation Committee and the purport of the Judgment of this Court. 
6. 
 
The respondent, Lahore Bachao Tehrik, which was party 
to the earlier matter has vehemently opposed the application. It is 
submitted that the report of the Committee, referred to above, was 
conclusive and was accepted by the Government of Punjab. Since the 
Judgment in fact is a compromise judgment which has attained 
finality, the applicant cannot withdraw such consent and is estopped 
by its own conduct.  
It is also argued that the canal area throughout has been 
declared as Heritage Park and pursuant to the above, The Act came 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 8 :-
into force. Accordingly per the force of law, it is now impermissible for 
the applicant to, in any way, widen the road, to encroach upon the 
greenbelt or cut any trees, as there is/are a strict prohibition to that 
effect in the said law. It is also argued that the extension/widening of 
the road is no solution of the traffic problem as has been highlighted 
in various documents produced before us rather the applicant should 
come up with alternate means to overcome the traffic congestion in 
the area.  
It is further submitted that there is no justification for widening 
of the road. There is no need or requirement to revisit the said 
Judgment. The applicant in the garb of the present application 
intends to undo the said judgment and is in fact seeking review of the 
said judgment, but no case in this regard (for review) at all has been 
made out. Besides, the review power of this Court has but a limited 
scope and no appeal (review) is available against a consent order. In 
making this submission the judgments reported as Muhammad 
Tufail Vs. Abdul Ghafoor (PLD 1958 SC 201), Syed Arif Shah Vs. 
Abdul Hakeen Qureshi (PLD 1991 SC 905), Amin Badshah Vs. 
Nargis Saleem (2000 SCMR 1641), Rashida Vs. Aziz Begum (1998 
SCMR 1340) and Sajjad Hussain Vs. Musrat Hussain (1989 SCMR 
1826) have been relied upon by the learned counsel. 
It is also stated that the Canal Park is a Public Trust and 
cannot be encroached upon only for the benefit of 8% of the 
population of Lahore which has vehicle ownership and fundamental 
right to life of the public at large cannot be compromised by cutting 
of age old trees (that are now part of the heritage park) as the same will have 
serious ecological impact.  
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 9 :-
Lahore Bachao Tehrik has also submitted through Criminal 
Original 
Petition 
No.96/2014 
that 
as 
the 
respondents 
in 
disobedience/breach of the judgment of this Court ibid have already 
cut certain trees, they are guilty of violating the Judgment, therefore, 
criminal action be initiated against them. 
7. 
 
On account of the pleadings and hearing of both the 
parties, the main propositions which emerged for our consideration 
are:- 
i) 
Whether per the judgment of this Court reported as Cutting of 
trees for canal widening project, Lahore (2011 SCMR 1743) 
and the Act, the widening of the road, the cutting of the trees and 
destruction of the greenbelt is not permissible and whether the 
permission being sought by the applicant is violative of the 
aforesaid Judgment and the Act; 
ii) 
Whether there is such acute need for widening of the road as has 
been propounded by the applicant and whether the canal road 
having been declared heritage park is protected by the doctrine of 
public trust; 
iii) 
Whether the judgment in question being in the nature of a consent 
order precludes the applicant from seeking permission of this 
Court for carrying out the proposed project including widening of 
the Canal Road by utilizing some part of the green belt deemed as 
the Heritage Park and whether the application filed by the 
applicant is one requiring review of the Judgment and Court while 
exercising its jurisdiction in terms of Article 184(3), by itself can 
permit the inclusion of the greenbelt for widening of the road and 
cutting of trees upon some conditions; 
iv) 
Whether 
on 
account 
of 
the 
allegations 
leveled 
in 
Crl.O.P.No.96/2014, 
the 
applicants 
have 
committed 
disobedience/violation of the judgment of this Court calling for 
contempt proceedings against them. 
 
PROPOSITION NO.1: 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 10 :-
8. 
 
In order to cater to this proposition, we will follow a two 
pronged process. Our first step will be to assess whether either limb 
of the project infringes upon any of the recommendations of the 
Mediation Committee as embodied in the Judgment of this Court and 
whether the same prohibit construction/widening of the Canal Bank 
Road in its totality. We will then proceed on to see whether any part 
of the project is violative of the Act and whether there is room for 
implementation of the project and if so, whether there are any 
conditions/prerequisites.  
 
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROJECT WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE 
MEDIATION COMMITTEE AND THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN IN THE JUDGMENT OF THIS 
COURT 
 
9. 
 
For the purposes of resolving this contention, we find it 
expedient to reproduce the relevant features of the consensus 
Recommendations of the Mediation Committee (Recommendations), which 
read as follows:- 
 
“…… 
2. Correct the "Incorrect Underpasses" on the Canal Road 
During the proceedings of the Committee, it became clear that 
the design of the underpasses at Jail Road and Ferozepur 
Road (the "Incorrect Underpasses"), ….were not in 
accordance with appropriate traffic engineering solutions and 
that these Incorrect Underpasses constitute a serious traffic 
safety hazard. 
 
The Incorrect Underpasses are incorrectly situated in 
the slower/left lanes. International design standards and 
conventions stipulate that underpasses are to be located in the 
fast lane. Due to this flaw, the through traffic movement 
towards the Incorrect Underpasses is suddenly diverted to the 
left lane instead of flowing straight in the right lane as is the 
case with all the other underpasses later correctly constructed 
along the Lahore Canal Road…. 
(…..) 
the fast-moving traffic going through and coming out 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 11 :-
of the Incorrect Underpasses criss-crosses with slow moving 
traffic and creates direct conflict points (red circles) instead 
of smooth weaving and merging. This raises serious 
road/traffic safety issues and destructs the smooth flow of 
traffic…. 
(….) 
The Incorrect Underpasses, therefore, need to be re-
aligned and reconstructed in accordance with internationally 
accepted design standards and parameters. 
Similarly, the Committee noted that the bypasses at 
the Jinnah and Doctor's Hospital intersections required 
geometric improvements as the fast and slow-moving traffic 
do not smoothly weave and merge. This causes traffic conflict 
points and creates traffic safety hazards. A representation of 
the problem is given below: 
3. Re-engineer the Junctions along the Canal Road 
There are, broadly, two (2) categories of intersections along 
the Canal. These are: 
 
(1) 
 Roads traversing through the Canal Road 
 
With respect to these types of intersections, 
the Committee noted the fact that, in all, there were 
twelve (12) such intersections over the Lahore Canal 
and that several of these intersections carried 
significantly higher traffic volumes across the Canal 
Road than the traffic that flowed on the Canal Road. 
 
The straight and turning traffic movement 
along the Canal Road that does not go through the 
underpasses also uses these intersections. It was 
observed by the Committee that the designed capacity 
of these intersections is not sufficient to accommodate 
the large traffic volumes and that as a result, there 
are 
bottlenecks 
on 
these 
intersections. 
It 
is 
recommended that these intersections are re-modelled 
after a traffic capacity analysis and designed in 
accordance with standard geometric design. This will 
help to have a smooth flow of traffic at these 
intersections and will reduce congestion. In addition, 
signals along the corridor and at intersections over 
the Canal Road should be gully actuated and traffic 
signage should be of international standard. 
(2) 
Roads and streets connecting to the Canal 
Road 
 
These roads and streets connect the Canal 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 12 :-
Road and predominantly emanate from housing 
schemes and individual houses. The Committee noted 
that these were unplanned access routes built for a 
variety of reasons, which provide connectivity to the 
housing schemes or private residences along the 
Canal Road. The traffic entering and exiting from 
these intersections slows traffic movement along the 
Canal Road. This leads to undue stoppages and 
causes congestion. 
 
The Committee is of the opinion that there 
should not be direct connections of the Canal Road to 
housing schemes and private residences. Traffic 
generated and attracted by these housing schemes and 
residences requires the construction of a network of 
service roads, preferably in a one-way loop system, 
with proper geometries to enable smooth weaving and 
merging of traffic from and onto the Canal Road. 
 
Also, bus bays constructed along the length of 
the Canal Road require redesigning in order to 
facilitate the smooth entry and exit of vehicles and to 
minimize traffic turbulence. 
4. Construct Service Roads along Certain Parts of the Canal 
Road 
(…) 
The Committee is of the opinion that there is an 
immediate requirement to provide a one-way loop service 
road system along the entire length of the Canal Road (except 
the Punjab University premises between the Campus 
underpass and the Jinnah Hospital underpass) with 
appropriately designed smooth entry and exit points to avoid 
traffic turbulence and congestion….  
12. Cleaning and Improving Water Quality of Canal 
The sources of effluent, sewage and waste into the Lahore 
Canal should be identified. Civil society as well as 
government agencies should team up to clean the Lahore 
Canal so that exposure to its water is not harmful or 
dangerous to health and with an aim of bringing the quality of 
the water of the Lahore Canal to the minimum guidelines 
determined by the World Health Organization for recreational 
water use… 
13. People-Centric Planning 
….The Committee would like to recommend a change in the 
urban agenda to include a more people friendly and people-
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 13 :-
centric development. Pedestrians and cyclists are routinely 
ignored in road planning. This orientation needs to be 
balanced. 
16. Ambulance/Medical Emergencies 
The officials of Rescue 1122 emergency services repeatedly 
stressed the importance of removing encroachments along the 
Canal Road and ensuring a smooth flow of traffic at all times 
for the purpose of facilitating emergency vehicles taking 
patients to hospitals. The officials were of the view that while 
it was acceptable that alternative routes to hospital and 
healthcare facilities should be identified and developed in the 
long term, there was a strong need for a short term solution to 
the congestion along the Canal Road such as selected 
widening of the Road. 
17. Limited Widening of Road 
The total distance on one side of the Canal Road from 
Dharampura to Thokar Niaz Beg is 14.5 km. Out of these 
different sections, 6.59 km road has already been widened 
before the reference of this matter to mediation. 
 
The congestion on the remaining about 8 km is 
particularly acute in certain locations, leading not only to 
prolonged delays but also causing safety hazards because 
ambulances and rescue vehicles are caught up in traffic and 
unable to move swiftly. 
The Committee, after a detailed site visit to these stretches of 
the Canal Road and discussion with the concerned officials, 
recommends that this short-term congestion can be relieved to 
some extent if the third lane is allowed to be added at the 
following locations on both sides of the Canal: 
 
• 
Mall Road 
to 
Jail 
Road ... 
525 M 
(Eastern) 
  
  
460 M 
(Western) 
• 
Jail Road 
to 
F.C. 
College... 
550 M 
(Eastern) 
  
  
550 M 
(Western) 
• 
University 
Campus to 
Jinnah 
Hospital... 
1,700M 
(Eastern) 
  
  
1,700M 
(Western) 
• 
Jinnah 
Hospital 
to Doctors 
Hospital... 
700 M 
(Eastern) 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 14 :-
  
  
750 M 
(Western) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
These stretches totalling a maximum of 3.525 km on 
each side, as shown in Annexure J/1 to J/4, have 642 trees. 
And 60% (about 385) of these trees are of eucalyptus specie. 
Every effort should be made to build the third lane in these 
stretches on the edges of the existing road to reduce to a 
minimum the area taken from the green belt on both sides of 
the Canal Road. The last stretch from Doctors Hospital to 
Thokar Niaz Beg (2.6 KM) is getting increasingly congested 
because of the volume of traffic generated from housing 
colonies like M.A. Johar Town and a large number of other 
colonies beyond Thokar Niaz Beg and areas on and around 
Raiwind Road. However, with the construction of service 
roads, as per Recommendation No. 4, the flow on the Canal 
Road can be reduced. In addition, some improvement can be 
achieved without encroaching on the green belt, if the trees on 
the edges of the road causing bottlenecks (about 460 trees 
including about 310 eucalyptus) (Annexure K), are removed 
to improve earthen shoulders and bus bays are provided at 
suitable points. The Committee does not recommend the 
widening of the Canal Road through a third lane in this 
stretch. 
 
For each tree felled in any sector of the Lahore Canal 
Road, the Punjab Government will plant at least a hundred 
(100) mature trees in replacement. 
18. Sector-Specific Recommendations 
Although the mandate of the Committee from the Supreme 
Court was only for the Canal Bank Road from Dharampura to 
Thokar Niaz Beg, our recommendations cover, because of the 
interdependence of urban planning issues, the area upstream 
of Dharampura as well as downstream from Thokar Niaz Beg 
in the following, sector-specific recommendations: 
 
(1) 
Jallo Mor to Dharampura Underpass 
 
The Committee recommends a moratorium on 
all new commercial activity and draws attention to the 
ongoing unplanned development and encroachment 
(of green belt) activity in this sector. Service roads in 
this sector deserve special attention. 
 
The Punjab Government has no proposal for 
the Canal Bank Road or an underpass in this sector 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 15 :-
but its future planning should be guided by the 
Recommendations of the Committee. 
           (2) 
Dharampura 
Underpass 
to 
Mall 
Road 
Underpass 
 
The Committee is of the opinion that this 
sector is working well but indicates that the 
encroachments and restrictions along the service road 
should be removed in order to facilitate a smooth flow 
of traffic. 
 
The Punjab Government has no proposal for 
the Canal Bank Road or an underpass in this sector 
but its future planning should be guided by the 
Recommendations of the Committee. 
 
(3) 
Mall Road Underpass to Jail Road Underpass 
 
The Committee is of the opinion that entry and 
exit points along this sector may be streamlined to 
promote smooth entry and exit from the Canal Road 
and to minimize traffic turbulence. 
(4) 
Jail 
Road 
Underpass 
to 
F.C. 
College 
Underpass 
 
In addition to its Recommendation No. 2 
above, the Committee recommends the enforcement of 
land-use and zoning laws in the areas adjacent to the 
Lahore Canal in this sector. 
 
(5) 
Campus Underpass to Jinnah Underpass 
 
As per the recommendation of the Committee, 
this sector of the Canal will be subject to traffic 
diversions to Multan Road on the north of the Canal 
and Usmani Road on the South of Canal. Appropriate 
signage will also be necessary to announce these 
diversions. These diversions will also benefit from the 
signal free corridor being constructed at Kalma 
Chowk for traffic flowing from Garden Town to 
Liberty Market. 
 
(6) 
Jinnah Underpass to Thokar Niaz Beg 
 
The Committee reiterates its Recommendation 
No. 7 above, namely that traffic to the Old CBD and 
New CBD should be diverted from the Canal Road 
and onto the Multan Road and the Southern Bypass 
respectively. The Committee also recommends the 
construction 
of 
radial/arterial 
roads 
along 
a 
northwest-southeast axis as proposed by the 1991 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 16 :-
JICA Lahore Urban Transport Master Plan. These 
radial/arterial roads will also assist in diverting 
traffic from the Canal Road as envisaged in 
Recommendation No. 4 above. 
 
The Committee is also of the view that the 
results of the current Lahore Urban Transport Master 
Plan study being conducted by the Transport 
Department of the Government of the Punjab will be 
instructive in this regard. 
 
(7) 
Beyond Thokar Niaz Beg 
 
The Committee recommends a moratorium on 
new commercial development as well a check on 
unplanned development along this sector of the 
Lahore Canal just as it recommended in No.(1) above. 
 
10. 
 
Whereas, the Project (construction of underpass and widening of 
road in the sector falling between Dharampura Underpass and HarbanspuraInterchange 
and addition of a third lane in the sector falling between Doctor’s Hospital and Thokar Niaz  
Begfeatures) for which permission has been sought by the applicant vide 
CMA No.3221/2014 includes the following construction/widening 
activities (project features):- 
i. 
U-turn Bridges and remodeling of underpasses through the entirety of 
the Canal Road; 
ii. 
Storm water/draining chutes and walkways along the whole of Canal 
Road; 
iii. 
Realignment of Jail Road Underpass; 
iv. 
Provision of service roads for the stretch between ThokarNiaz Beg to 
Doctor’s Hospital. 
v. 
Construction/widening of road by 6 metres for the stretch between 
Mall Road to Harbanspura Interchange; 
vi. 
Construction/widening of road by 6 metres by way of adding a third 
lane on either side of the Canal for the stretch between ThokarNiaz 
Beg to Doctor’s Hospital; 
 
11. 
 
Having perused the basic Project features as also the 
Recommendations, it is clear to our mind that there can be no doubt 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 17 :-
that the project features mentioned above are compliant with rather 
pursuant to the Recommendations and directions issued by this 
Court vide the Judgment in question and not in derogation thereto. 
Our view is based on the analysis provided below. 
12. 
 
As regards, Project feature (i) (U-turn bridges and re-
modeling of underpasses, Recommendation No. 3 supra clearly 
stipulates the need for re-engineering of Junctions/intersections 
along the Canal Road so as to ensure removal of bottlenecks leading 
to traffic congestion on these intersections whereas directions no. (iii) 
and (iv) by this Court in the Judgment supra require necessary 
corrections/modifications of underpasses and re-engineering of 
junctions. 
13. 
 
Project feature (ii) (Storm water/draining chutes and 
walkways) is pursuant to Recommendations No. 12 and 13 supra. 
Recommendation No. 12 identifies the need to implement a plan for 
the cleaning up of the Lahore Canal and improving the water quality 
of the Canal which is also in line with direction No. (ix) supra whereas 
Recommendation No. 13 mandates a people-centric development of 
the Canal Road which takes into account the needs of pedestrians 
and cyclists. 
14. 
 
With regards to Project Feature (iii) (Jail Road Underpass), 
there can be no cavil that it is in furtherance to the agenda laid out 
in Recommendation No. 2 supra which is to correct to the design of 
the underpass at Jail Road as currently this incorrect underpass 
poses a serious traffic safety hazard. This project feature is also in 
line with direction No. (iii) supra.  
15. 
 
Project feature (iv) (provision of service roads) is clearly in 
accordance with Recommendation No. 4, i.e. construction of service 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 18 :-
roads with appropriately designed smooth entry and exit points to 
avoid traffic turbulence and congestion. Direction No. (vii), on the 
other hand, also supports this project feature. 
16. 
 
Project feature (v) (Construction/widening of road by 6 metres for the 
stretch between Mall Road to Harbanspura Interchange) entails actual widening by 
adding a third lane from Dharampura to Harbanspura and 1.3 KM 
underpass 
that 
covers 
the 
railway 
crossings 
at 
Chabucha 
Interchange and Griffin Park.  
It is the case of the applicants that this widening and 
construction of underpass is envisaged and tacitly allowed  
throughout the length of the Canal Road from Mall Road Underpass 
right up to Jallo More vide Recommendations No. 18(1) and 18(2). 
Widening of road and construction of underpass in the sector falling 
between Dharampura to Harbanspura falls within the sector 
considered by the Mediation Committee under Recommendation 
18(1) i.e. the heading “Jallo Mor to Dharampura Underpass” which 
states that a moratorium on all new commercial activity be placed 
and draws attention to the ongoing unplanned development and 
encroachment activity in this sector. It also, however, adds that the 
Punjab Government has no proposal for the Canal Bank Road or an 
underpass in this sector but its future planning should be guided by 
the Recommendation of the Committee. 
It is submitted that the widening of the Canal Road between 
“Jallo-Mor to Dharampura Underpass” and “Dharampura Underpass 
to Mall Road Underpass” was not specifically discussed in the 
Recommendations as at that time, the Punjab Government did not 
have any plans for construction or widening in the said sectors. In 
light of the above and the overall scheme of the Recommendations 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 19 :-
and Judgment of this Court, we are of the view that, from the 
wording used in Recommendations No. 18(1) and 18(2), it is clear 
that the Mediation Committee was fully conscious of the traffic 
problems along these sectors and envisioned works in these sectors 
in the future and therefore since this project feature is in line with 
the overall Recommendations and directions of this Court, it is 
allowed provided there is minimal environmental intrusion.  
17. 
 
Coming now to project feature (vi) (Construction/widening of 
road by 6 metres by way of adding a third lane on either side of the Canal for the stretch 
between ThokarNiaz Beg to Doctor’s Hospital), Recommendation No. 17 supra is 
of importance. Though it is acknowledged by the Mediation 
Committee in its Recommendations that the stretch from Doctor’s 
Hospital to Thokar Niaz Beg is getting increasingly congested because 
of various housing colonies surrounding this stretch, widening of the 
Canal Road through addition of a third lane in this stretch was not 
recommended. Instead, this problem was recommended to be tackled 
through construction of service roads and by removing trees on the 
edge of the road for improving earthen shoulders and by providing 
bus bays at suitable points.  
 
It is however clear from the submissions made by the learned 
counsel for the applicants (and documents/information brought on the record) 
during the course of hearing regarding this last stretch that the 
alternatives proposed by the Mediation Committee have been tried 
and tested and it has become clear that these solutions were not 
sufficient for relieving the traffic congestion problems in this stretch. 
From a reading of Recommendation No. 17, it is also clear that there 
in fact persisted a serious traffic issue in this sector and the only 
reason why addition of a third lane was not allowed was because at 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 20 :-
that time, it was the view of the Mediation Committee that alternative 
solutions for countering this problem could be successfully employed.  
 
Owing to the sudden transition from three-lane traffic to two-
lane traffic from Doctor’s Hospital onwards, however, the traffic 
problems have persisted and addition of a third lane at this point is 
the only solution to the problem at hand as alternative solutions have 
also proved futile. On account of the above we are of the view that 
provided there is minimum environmental intrusion and the Heritage 
Park is duly protected, addition of a third lane will significantly 
benefit the people of Lahore by enabling smooth flow of traffic in this 
stretch which is the purport of the Recommendations of the 
Mediation Committee and the Judgment of this Court.  
18. 
 
Having said that, leaving apart the prohibitions and 
permissions granted in the Judgment, we are making it clear that 
other than the construction/widening activities for which permission 
has expressly been granted herein, the applicant shall not in the 
future engage in any construction/widening activities along the 
Canal Road without first applying to this Court and seeking its 
permission. All activities other than those specified in this opinion 
are prohibited and barred; no activities shall be construed as being 
tacitly allowed by the applicant which (activities) have not expressly 
been permitted.  The applicant may, however, carry out repair and 
maintenance works of the Canal Road.  
 
COMPLIANCE OF THE PROJECT WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAHORE CANAL HERITAGE 
PARK ACT, 2013 
 
19. 
 
While making their submissions regarding whether the 
Project is violative of the Act, learned counsel for the parties have 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 21 :-
referred to various provisions of the Act. The relevant Sections 
whereof are as follows:- 
2. 
Definitions.– In this Act– 
(d) 
“canal tree” means a tree in the 
Heritage Park 
 
3(5) 
Subject to subsection (8) and except with prior 
permission in writing from the Authority, the 
following acts shall be wholly prohibited in the 
Heritage Park– 
 
(a) 
construction or any other infrastructure 
development work, clearing or breaking up any 
land for cultivation, mining or for any other 
purpose; 
 
(b) 
felling, tapping, burning or in any way 
damaging or destroying, taking, collecting or 
removing any plant or canal tree; 
 
(c) 
polluting water flowing in and through 
the Heritage Park; 
 
(d) 
hunting, shooting, trapping, killing or 
capturing of any animal or bird; 
 
(e) 
using firearm or doing any other act which 
may disturb any animal or bird or acting in a 
manner which is likely to interfere with the 
breeding places; and 
 
(f) 
such other prohibitions as the Government 
may notify in the official Gazette. 
 
3(8) 
The permission mentioned in subsection (5) shall 
be subject to such conditions and in such manner 
as may be prescribed and while granting such 
permission, the Authority shall, among other 
things, take into consideration the following:- 
 
(a) 
amenity value of the canal tree; 
 
(b) 
character of the area; 
 
(c) 
necessity of the action; 
 
(d) 
possibility of an affordable alternative; 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 22 :-
(e) 
mitigation measures to reduce the 
impact of reducing canal tree cover;  
(f) 
expediency of the proposal or work 
requiring the felling, lopping, trimming or 
otherwise cutting of the canal tree; and 
(g) 
environmental impact assessment of the 
proposed activity. 
 
6(2) 
The Advisory Committee may also advise the 
Authority on any other matter ancillary to the 
discharge of its functions under the Act. 
6(3) 
In the performance of its functions under this Act, 
the Authority shall take into consideration any 
advice of the Advisory Committee. 
 
7. 
Action by the Authority.– (1) The Authority shall 
take appropriate action on the recommendations 
of the Advisory Committee within reasonable time 
and shall communicate to the Advisory Committee 
the reasons for not accepting any of its 
recommendations, and the Advisory Committee 
may, in the prescribed manner, submit a 
representation to the Government for appropriate 
orders. 
 
From the sections reproduced above, it may be seen that per Sub-
section (5) of Section 3, construction or any other infrastructure 
development work in the Heritage Park is wholly prohibited. This 
prohibition, however, is not absolute and definitive, rather the Sub-
section itself clarifies that it (Sub-section 3(5)) is applicable only where 
permission from PHA has not been sought and that further it is 
subject to the provisions of Sub-section (8) of Section 3 and has to be 
read in accordance.   
 
Sub-section 3(8) lays down the factors that have to be taken 
into account by PHA before it grants permission for any construction 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 23 :-
activity in the Heritage Park. Sub-section 3(8) read with Sub-sections 
6(2), 6(3) and 7(1) read together mandate that permission may only 
be granted under Sub-section 3(8) after Environmental Impact 
Assessment and requisite approval from EPA and once Advisory 
Committee constituted under Section 5 has been consulted.  
In the instant matter, through the documents/information 
produced before us and brought on the record, we have been 
apprised that Environmental Impact Assessment of the proposed 
project was conducted and the EPA accorded its approval vide 
Approval Letter dated 15.12.2014 subject to certain conditions. 
Consequent to such approval, the matter was raised before the 
Advisory Committee which too approved the project in principle with 
the condition that a sub-committee would be constituted to formulate 
the Master Plan for Canal Trees Management which is evident from 
the Minutes of the 6th Meeting of Lahore Canal Advisory Committee 
held on 27.1.2015. Finally, after seeking approval of EPA as also the 
Advisory Committee, the matter was put before and approved by the 
Board of Directors of PHA in its 6th Meeting held on 6.2.2015. 
In view of the above we find no merit in the proposition that the 
Project infringes upon the protections accorded to the Heritage Park 
vide the Act and find that the applicant is fully compliant with the 
mandate of the Act.  
Before parting with this proposition, we would also comment 
upon another submission made by the learned counsel for the 
respondent that per Section 2(d) of the Act, canal tree means any tree 
in the Heritage Park and therefore each and every tree which falls 
within the Heritage Park has to be protected and substitutionary 
approach cannot be taken; trees in the Heritage Park may be felled 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 24 :-
provided their replacements are planted elsewhere is not the mandate 
or purport of the law. As regards the above, suffice it to say that 
Section 2(d) is a definition clause and it cannot be read in isolation 
and has read to be read in conjunction with the substantive clauses 
of the Act; Section 2(d) is subservient to, dependent upon and must 
be interpreted/construed in line with Sub-sections 3(5) and 3(8) and 
therefore we do not find any merit in this submission either.  
PROPOSITION NO. 2: 
20. 
 
We have considered the arguments as mentioned earlier 
and without in any manner, as has been stated, affecting the ratio of 
the judgment noted above, we find that the extension and widening of 
the road partly has provided a proper flow to the transport passing by 
but at the places where the road is narrowed, traffic congestion takes 
place. This congestion is undoubtedly against the public good as 
considerable residential localities have been made across Thokar Niaz 
Baig and also the main connection to the Motorway is also through 
the canal bank road.  
It is, therefore, the canal bank road which has attained 
considerable importance and most of the time it has been noticed 
that the traffic congestion has been experienced not only by the 
people who have to bring their children to the main city for 
education, rather as the main hospitals are also in the main city, 
ambulances also cannot pass through when there is a congestion at 
the places where the road is narrowed.  
The concern of the respondents is only that some trees will be 
cut and on account of the above, the green areas would be reduced 
and shrunk significantly impacting the ecology of the area and since 
the Canal Road is a public trust, the same cannot be tampered with. 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 25 :-
We have been apprised that for each tree cut, the government is 
going to plant ten trees. Not only the above, it is a matter of public 
knowledge that in the city of Lahore, number of trees have been 
planted in different parts and on account of such, the environment 
has improved. Therefore, the cutting of trees would in no way be a 
hazard to the environment but to disallow such widening in fact is 
causing great trouble and inconvenience to the public at large and on 
account of congestions it has become in fact hazardous for the 
movers/commuters on this very important road; their life quality is 
being affected. Therefore, there is no reason as to why the applicant 
should not be allowed to execute the work and to correct the crooked 
part of the road i.e. skewed which in fact has become a traffic hazard.  
Moreover, with regards to the application of the doctrine of 
public trust, suffice it to say that as had been settled in the earlier 
Judgment of this court (see paras 32 to 35 thereof), a public trust resource 
cannot be converted into private use or any other use other than a 
public purpose and in the instant case the widening of the road to 
ease traffic congestion and facilitate the commuters was/is a public 
good. Specifically when a limited area is being affected by the 
proposed widening/construction to ease the greater problem of 
bottlenecks and traffic blockages and when the applicant has also 
undertaken to replace trees, as mentioned above, which are felled as 
a consequence of the proposed widening to ensure that no adverse 
ecological impacts are faced, we do not find a reason to deny the 
request of the applicant. 
PROPOSITION NO. 3: 
21. 
 
We now turn to the argument propounded by the learned 
counsel for the respondents that the noted Judgment is a consent 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 26 :-
judgment and, therefore, the applicant is estopped from asking for 
the widening of the road which was not permitted per the report of 
the Mediation Committee or Judgment and, therefore, the application 
should be dismissed on this score alone.  
We have pondered over the objection/plea but are of the 
considered view that the present is not an adversarial litigation 
between the parties, rather it has genesis in a social action litigation 
initiated by LBT and this Court in exercise of its powers under Article 
184(3) accepted the report of the Mediation Committee and made it 
part of its Judgment with the consent of the parties. But such 
consent or judgment does not in any way denude this Court of its 
jurisdiction in social action litigation to subsequently pass 
appropriate orders where it becomes imperative and expedient and 
where information has been provided to the Court which necessitates 
appropriate orders. From the facts which have come on the record 
and as has been held by us, we find that on account of limited 
widening of road, further complications have emerged and in order to 
cater for those, this Court, leaving apart the consent, does have 
ample and absolute power and jurisdiction to permit widening for 
appropriate and justified reasons and for the cutting of 1372 number 
of trees and use of green belt to the extent of 30.85 acres needed for 
the Project, therefore, this consent part would not come in the way of 
the court’s empowerment.  
Moreover it may be pertinent to mention here that in the facts 
and circumstances the rules of acquiescence, waiver, estoppel, past 
and closed transaction or any other rule having nexus to these 
concept and theory would not at all be relevant when we are 
exercising jurisdiction under Article 184(3). 
C.M.A.3221 of 2012 in S.M.C.25 of 2009 & Cr.O.P.96/2014 
-: 27 :-
With regards to the contention of the learned counsel for the 
appellant that since the Judgment was a result of consent reached 
between the parties, it cannot be reviewed, suffice it to say that we in 
no way are considering the application before us to be one requiring 
review of the earlier Judgment of this Court. It is at best a case of re-
visiting for the purposes of clarification of the Judgment. Even 
otherwise, in such public interest litigation, we, having been provided 
with requisite information, have the inherent power to re-visit out 
orders/decisions. In such a case, therefore, the rigors of review 
jurisdiction shall stricto sensu not be attracted. 
PROPOSITION NO.4: 
22. 
 
In light of what has been discussed above, we do not find 
that the Judgment of this Court has been violated warranting 
criminal action against the applicant. Even otherwise permission for 
widening/construction to the extent aforementioned has been 
granted vide this judgment and since contempt is a matter between 
contemnor and Court, we do not find it necessary or expedient to 
take any action against the respondents of Crl.O.P.No.96/2014. 
 
In view of the above, C.M.A.No.3221/2012 is allowed, while 
Crl.O.P.No.96/2014 is dismissed. 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
Announced in open Court  
JUDGE 
on 5.8.2015 at Lahore 
Approved For Reporting 
Waqas Naseer/* 
