PESHAWAR: Peshawar High Court has set aside termination of lease by Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Tourism Authority of a precious plot awarded to a business firm more than 15 years ago for establishing a tourism complex in Donga Gali, Abbottabad.

A bench consisting of Justice Wiqar Ahmad and Justice Fazal Subhan has accepted a petition filed by the firm, M/S Shamsi Builders Karachi, which has been in litigation with the authority since 2010, with multiple directives to the petitioner, GaliyatDevelopment Authority (GDA) and KP Culture and Tourism Authority (KPCTA).

KPCTA, while terminating the lease agreement, had cited certain reasons stating that the firm had allegedly submitted faulty site plan not in consonance with GDA Building Bylaws and Act, which inflicted heavy losses on the exchequer.

The bench, in its 14-page detailed judgement, directed that the petitioner should be afforded a single opportunity for preparing and submitting a map of construction in accordance with the prevalent GDA regulations within 90 days.

`Then an application shallbe made along with proposed map to the director general of KP Culture and Tourism Authority. The department shall forward the map to GDA within 30 days of being submitted. GDA shall either approve the map within 30 days further or convey to the peti-tioner any reservation or objection which may be made on such building plan within same period of 30 days, the bench ordered.

It directed that the petitioner should remove all such objections and submit a fresh building plan to GDA within 30 days thereafter in respect of which GDA should pass a written order within further 30 days either approving or disapproving the map by giving express reasons.

`If this time the map is disapproved by GDA finally or petitioner fails in removing valid objection conveyed to him in writing then KP Tourism Authority shall be at liberty to cancel the agreement again after affording opportunity of hearing to petitioner,` the bench ordere d.

The bench observed that perusal of record revealed that passing termination order, petitioner had not been served with any notice nor afforded an opportunity of hearing. `He hadbeen condemned unheard and therefore, the impugned order is not sustainable on this score,` it added.

The petitioner`s counsel Syed Tanveer Ashraf stated that in early 2007, the then Sarhad Tourism Corporation (STC) had invited bids for granting a 30-yeatr lease of a fourkanal plot in main bazaar, Donga Gali, Abbottabad, to develop a tourism complex consisting of rooms, suites, restaurants and related facilities.

He said that the petitioner was declared successful bidder after which a lease agreement was executed with him on June 1, 2007. He added that in Dec 2007, the lease was amended to include an additional seven marlas increasing the lease land to four-kanal and seven marlas.

He stated that STC had earlier cancelled the lease through a letter on Feb 18, 2010, stating that no constriction had been initiated or completedwithin the two-year grace period, which ran from June 1, 2007 to June 1, 2009.

He said that the petitioner had challenged that order in PHC, which accepted his plea in May 2010, but GDA refused to approve the site/ building plan. The counsel stated that it again served a notice on the petitioner in May 2011, warning it of termination of the lease in case the site plan was not approved within a month. He added that the petitioner again filed a petition in the high court, which clubbed it with 22 other petitions related to Galiyat areas.

In the meantime, he said, respondents including GDA produced a letter that the lease had been cancelled, following which the court disposed of that petition on June 15, 2023, observing that it had become infructuous.

He stated that the petitioner then field the present petition, challengingcancellation of the lease agreement by KPCTA.

The bench observed that the main reason for cancellation was that the petitioner had not been able to approve his building plan from GDA and couldn`t raise construction of the plot in accordance with the terms of his lease earlier granted to him.

Referring to the lease deed, the bench observed that the timeline would have started once the master plan had been approved by the lessor. It observed that it was an admitted fact that the petitioner had submitted construction plan eight times but the same had not been found favour with the relevant branch of GDA and every time it was objected by GDA.

The bench observed that since the master plan had not been approved so the time had not started running against the petitioner justifying termination of the lease deed.