KARACHI: The plaintiff counsel, who challenged the construction of Creek Terraces and Creek View construction projects of stockbroker Aqeel Karim Dhedhi, argued before the Sindh High Court (SHC) on Friday that the projects in question were being built on land earmarked originally as amenity plots of DHA Phase VIII. The court was hearing the lawsuit of Zahidullah Khan, a resident of DHA, who challenged the award of Creek Terraces and Creek View construction projects to stockbroker Aqeel Karim Dhedhi in the Creek City of DHA, Phase VIII. The plaintiff submitted that the construction was executed on the amenity land meant for park, graveyard, school and sewage treatment plant in Khayaban-e-Shaheen, Phase VIII. In another lawsuit, technical consultant Kashif Alam Associates also questioned the award of Creek Terraces and Creek View projects to the AKD Capital by the DHA contending that the firm had not participated in the bidding process.
The counsel of plaintiff, Salahuddin Ahmed, argued that the land for the Creek Terraces consisted of 25 acres and 18 acres for Creek View, totaling 43 acres in Phase VIII, Creek City, whereas in the original master plan issued by the DHA of Phase VIII of the same land consisted of amenity plots allocated for a park, school, sewerage treatment plant and graveyard.
He said the amenity plots were designed for the benefit and use of general public as a necessity and under the main lease issued to the DHA, it cannot be used for any other purpose nor can it be sold, allotted or transferred to any private person including the defendants — Creek Developers, BF Property and Construction Pakistan and AKD Capital limited.
It was submitted that the DHA had launched the projects in names of Creek Terraces and Creek View, Creek City, in DHA, Phase-VIII whose land in the master layout plan was shown an amenity area but without permission of the federal government, the DHA illegally allowed the defendants to launch the projects. He also referred the Google images of the site mentioning that the land in question was shown as sewerage treatment plant and other amenities in 2010 prior to construction of the impugned constructions.
He submitted that the project in question was being built on land earmarked originally as amenity plots, alleging that there had been blatant violations of the PPRA Rules 2004 in this project. He submitted that the property in question at the time of the grant of Expression of Interest was valued at Rs6 billion whereas its actual value was Rs40 billion. He submitted that it was apparent that by using the amenity plots, the DHA and AKD Capital were extorting money from the general public. He submitted that a huge loss would be made to the public exchequer, as there would be no land for amenities designated initially by the DHA. He said the DHA with mala fide intentions allowed the AKD Capital to independently run the project without technical consultant and added that absence of quality control might cause a disaster and loss of lives. It was submitted that in case the said project was allowed to be completed, the public at large will not only lose their savings and investments, resulting in multiple litigations as in the case of other DHA projects, but will also be at the risk of losing their lives.
The court was prayed to declare that initiation of projects on amenity plots was unlawful and the same could not be used for any other purpose. The SHC’s single bench, headed by Justice Mohammad Ali Mazhar, after partial hearing the arguments of the case, adjourned the hearing till April 6 for further arguments.
The court in meantime extended the interim stay order restraining the developer from creating third party interest on the property till disposal of stay application.
In an identical case, Kashif Alam Associates also sought an injunction against the transfer of construction contract to the AKD Capital, as it had not participated in the bidding process.
The plaintiff contended that the contract was first awarded to the BF Property by the DHA on August 24, 2005 on the basis of its technical consultancy of the project but it was unlawfully given to the AKD Capital though it had not participated in the bidding project and, therefore, a fresh bid of the project be conducted in accordance with the law.
The technical consultant had earlier objected to the National Engineering Service of Pakistan’s (Nespak) terms of reference (ToRs) for vetting the structural design of Creek Terraces and Creek View projects in DHA Phase VIII and submitted that the multistoried towers were raised on defective piles being hazardous for human habitation.
He said if the construction was allowed to continue, ignoring the lack of load test, then lives of citizens would be at risk in case of building collapse. He said the Nespak had refused to issue a certificate of safety for all the towers and working piles beneath the project, as their execution and load test was not carried out in its presence.
The counsel submitted that since all the working piles subjected to load test at relevant time had failed, it was no longer possible to do so for all working piles. He submitted that the structure so far raised by the ADK Capital be demolished and all piles be laid afresh subject to proper load test.
He submitted that demolition of piles was necessary because hundreds of human lives would be at stake and no risk should be taken in this regard. He said such aspect was a conclusive consideration, as the court could not even allow the slightest risk of human life irrespective of monetary compensation.
The counsel submitted that the project was being developed on reclaimed land, which was far more vulnerable to differential settlement and its impact may be devastating as a mild quake would demolish the entire building structure.
He mentioned that in the past a huge multistoryed building had suddenly collapsed in the vicinity owing to similar differential settlement of land underneath. He said the plaintiff had timely pointed out the test failure of piles and brought it into the notice of AKD Capital as well as the DHA but the AKD Capital in order to avoid additional expenses accelerated the construction process to present fait accompli to the court. The counsel mentioned that the AKD Capital was allowed construction by the court on its own cost and risk.
He submitted that the project was not awarded to the AKD Capital, which was not even technically qualified and alleged that AKD Capital took the project superficially in connivance with the officers of DHA and BF Property, which was part of World Construction Group. He said the entire process was undertaken without a technical consultant, as the plaintiff was completely bypassed in the entire construction process.
The counsel further submitted that the project was raised without Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and it was illegal to construct any multistoryed without approval of EIA. He said the land of the project in question was also disputed, as it was discovered after the filing of lawsuit that it was meant for a graveyard and the DHA could not convert amenity plots into commercial and residential purpose.
The court was requested to pass orders that the construction raised on defective piles and being hazardous for human habitation be demolished.
The court had appointed the Nespak to determine structural stability of the project and directed it to submit ToRs in this regard.
The counsel for the plaintiff AKD Capital and Creek Developers had filed a statement with the court for determining the structure and stability of the project including execution of piles through a technical expert of the Nespak.
The Nespak submitted in its ToRs that it will vet the design of the structure and sub-structure based on the design date provided by the designers, data of execution work, and test performed at the site during construction period of project and field tests. The Nespak submitted that it cannot issue a certificate of safety of all towers, work piles beneath the project, as execution and load test of these piles was not carried out in its presence.
However, it said a safe allowable load carrying capacity of pile can be reckoned by critically scrutinizing the available record related to the execution of pile work, pile load and field tests of the site.
It is pertinent to mention that on October 9, 2013 the SHC modified its previous restraining order with regard to Creek Terraces and Creek View construction projects and granted permission for further construction on “own cost and risks.” However, the court restrained the developer from creating third party interest on the property till disposal of stay application.
The counsel for the DHA, however, submitted that the projects were not being constructed on amenity plots adding that the authority was adhering to the master plan in all respects. He also placed documents related to the indenture of lease between the President of Pakistan through military estate officer and DHA on November 11, 1975 and February 21, 2002 and lease between Port Qasim Authority and DHA on August 21, 2003. He also placed copies of the proposed master plans of DHA Phase VIII in 1989, 1992 and the approved master plan in 2007. The counsel for the AKD Capital adopted the arguments of the DHA.
