The Federal Constitutional Court has set aside the decision ordering the demolition of the Monal Restaurant in Islamabad’s Pir Sohawa area, marking a significant development in the long-running legal dispute over the property.
Read More: Constitutional court overturns Nasla Tower demolition orders
The court accepted appeals filed by the Capital Development Authority (CDA) and the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (MCI), while also vacating the stay order previously granted in the case.
In its ruling, the Constitutional Court directed that questions relating to ownership of the property should be decided by the relevant trial courts without being influenced by judicial observations made in earlier proceedings. The court further stated that administrative and regulatory matters concerning the property should be addressed by the competent regulatory authorities in accordance with the law.
The bench also instructed trial courts to dispose of the pending cases at the earliest to ensure a timely resolution of the dispute.
During the hearing, Justice Hassan Azhar Rizvi observed that several important aspects had not been adequately considered in the earlier Supreme Court judgment. He remarked that the Constitutional Court would decide the matter strictly on legal grounds rather than emotions.
Responding to arguments presented during the proceedings, Justice Rizvi said the court would issue its verdict solely on the basis of the hearings and evidence placed before it. He also commented that judicial decisions should remain focused on relevant legal issues and avoid unnecessary observations beyond the scope of the case.
The Monal Restaurant case has remained the subject of extensive legal proceedings involving questions of land ownership, environmental regulations and the jurisdiction of government authorities responsible for managing the area.
Read More: FCC shifts illegal constructions responsibility to Sindh authorities
Legal experts say the latest ruling does not settle the ownership dispute but instead sends the matter back to the appropriate trial courts for determination. Meanwhile, regulatory bodies will continue to oversee administrative issues relating to the property under existing laws and regulations.
The Constitutional Court’s verdict represents a new phase in the case, with future proceedings expected to determine the final legal status of the disputed property.