KARACHI: Do you expect an ordinary citizen booking a residential unit or a shop in a residential-commercial project to check the intricate details of ownership of the land, asks Amir Ali who owned residential flats in Nasla Tower, a building which is being demolished under the orders of Supreme Court (SC) of Pakistan. Ali further asks, “if one wants to see the ownership documents are they allowed to do so?”
Ali like many other residents wonders why he is losing his home. “With all due respect to the apex court, could it bound the owners and builders to provide true copies of documents of land and permissions granted by various government departments,” Ali says further.
During a hearing, the apex court had rejected residents’ request to not demolishing the project as it would ultimately hurt those who had bought the flats and shops with their hard earned money. However, in response it was the court’s belief that the buyers also had failed to exercise due diligence while purchasing residential units and shops in the project – a part of which was built by encroaching the land meant for a service road.
Ali’s woes aside, there is a well-developed precedent of legal due diligence for property transactions in Pakistan, points out advocate Tariq Hamza.
“Considering the large sum of money involved in purchasing a residential unit in projects like Nasla Tower, legal due diligence becomes all the more necessary,” according to Tariq, who adds that for this purpose buyers often seek out the help of attorneys.
In the parting paragraphs of its six-page order of June 16 2021, directing Karachi Commissioner Muhammad Iqbal Memon to expeditiously demolish Nasla Tower, the SC had observed, “the owners of the Tower shall refund the price of shops/residential units and other areas sold by them in any form to the registered owners within a period of three months from today.
In case of any delay, the claimants may claim markup/profit at the bank rate together with damages and for the said purpose initiate proceedings for the implementation of the order of this court before courts of competent jurisdiction.”
Ali says that the residents are trying to persuade the Association of Builders and Developers (ABAD) to help them getting their money refunded from the owners and builders who otherwise could not be contacted after the rejection of their review petition by the SC.
According to advocate Hamza, if the residents fail to recover their funds directly from the ABAD they would have to file lawsuits before the court. He does however admit that unless the SC issues further orders outlining a time-frame for completing the proceedings, these lawsuits could drag on for months and even for years.
Earlier on June 16, the SC had declared Nasla Tower an illegal construction and stated that such illegality could not be allowed to continue especially when the encroached land was meant for a service road.
It had ordered the Karachi Commissioner to evict all residents, take control the building immediately and initiate the process of its complete demolition expeditiously.
The apex court sealed the fate of Nasla Tower in September, when it rejected review petitions of its owner and residents.
