ISLAMABAD: The Islamabad High Court on Wednesday did not grant immediate relief to around 30 appellants claiming to be sub-lessees in the controversial One Constitution Avenue project while hearing a set of intra-court appeals challenging portions of an earlier judgment related to the property dispute.
A division bench comprising Justice Mohammad Azam Khan. Justice Raja Inaam Ameen Minhas heard the appeals filed by several apartment owners, including former air chief Mujahid Anwar Khan, former ICC president Ehsan Mani and former Senate chairman Wasim Sajjad.
The appellants challenged paragraph 30 of the earlier judgment to the extent. it allegedly affected the third-party rights of apartment owners who had purchased units in the building.
Advocates Taimur Aslam. Ali Raza represented the appellants, while Kashif Ali Malik appeared on behalf of the Capital Development Authority (CDA).
CDA argues cancelled lease invalidates sub-leases; court seeks authority’s written response by May 25
During the proceedings, CDA counsel argued that there already existed a “clear order” of the high court regarding cancellation of the lease. maintained that once the lease stood cancelled, the building vested in the CDA.
The counsel contended that the foundational document purported to be a lease deed was void in law. therefore incapable of conferring any enforceable rights.
According to the CDA, BNP had paid only around 16 per cent of the total consideration amount over a span of 21 years. had never acquired title in its own name.
Referring to the nature of the transaction, the CDA counsel submitted that the plot had originally been allotted for construction of a five-star hotel. was never intended for creation of third-party interests through apartment sub-leases.
He informed the bench. the purported 99-year lease in the One Constitution Avenue project was never registered after the sub-registrar declined registration on the ground that the document first required processing before the rent controller as a lease agreement.
The counsel argued that despite the absence of a duly registered parent lease deed constituting a valid title document. third parties proceeded to acquire sub-leases without carrying out due diligence.
The CDA counsel maintained that once the foundational instrument itself lacked legal efficacy. evidentiary value, no enforceable rights could flow from it.
Invoking the legal principle of caveat emptor, he argued that purchasers were legally obliged to exercise caution before acquiring interests in immovable property. that the apartment owners had entered into the transaction at their own risk.
He further argued that under settled law, a person could not transfer a better title than the one vested in it. therefore any subsequent transfer or sub-lease flowing from a defective title could not independently confer lawful rights upon third parties.
Referring to the earlier judgment. he submitted that the sub-lessees would “sink or swim” with the principal transaction entered into by BNP.
At one stage. Justice Minhas questioned whether, in that case, a committee constituted by the prime minister in relation to the matter would also become “illegal”.
The bench further asked CDA counsel why the authority had not challenged the prime minister’s committee.
“I would not comment on that; perhaps the Attorney General’s Office can explain,” the counsel replied.
Justice Minhas observed that failure to challenge the committee could create complications in the matter.
The bench also noted that the rights of apartment owners had earlier been defended before the Supreme Court.
Justice Minhas inquired whether any notices had been issued to residents directing them to vacate the apartments.
“When the lease legally existed. they were residing there,” the judge observed, adding that any future occupation would be a separate matter.
Justice Minhas further remarked that the dispute was no longer centred on BNP alone but now concerned the affectees. apartment owners.
Counsel for the CDA, however, maintained that in the authority’s view the apartment owners had “no status” before the CDA.
In response to a court query, he stated that the authority had not constituted any committee comprising apartment residents.
During the hearing, counsel for the appellants alleged that officials accompanied by police personnel were attempting to break open doors. urged the court to restrain the authorities through a stay order.
“What should we do then, register FIRs against police officers?” one of the counsels remarked.
Justice Azam Khan observed that the building was standing. “not going anywhere”, adding that the court required clarity from the CDA regarding its proposed course of action.
The CDA counsel informed the bench that the CDA Board would take a decision strictly in accordance with law.
He further argued that if relief was granted to third parties, the “direct beneficiary” would ultimately be BNP.
Following a preliminary hearing of the appeals, the bench directed the CDA to seek instructions and submit a written response. The hearing was adjourned till May 25.
Published in Dawn, May 21st, 2026
Discussion
Sign in to join the thread, react, and share images.