Federal Constitutional Court Sets Aside the 2024 Ruling on Margalla Hills Restaurants and Sends the Disputes to Civil Court

Short answer: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) has set aside the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment on restaurants in the Margalla Hills National Park, Islamabad. Its detailed reasons are dated 29 September 2026. The court sent the lease and rent disputes back to a civil court and held that the CDA, not the wildlife board, regulates building there.

If you have eaten at a hilltop restaurant above Islamabad, this case is about the ground under your table. Who owns that land, who may lease it, and who collects the rent were all in dispute.

We read the full judgment on the FCC website on 13 October 2026. It decides two review petitions, one by the Metropolitan Corporation Islamabad (No. 825 of 2024) and one by the Capital Development Authority, or CDA (No. 44 of 2025). It is a judgment on review, so it corrects an earlier judgment. It is not a new petition.

The court set aside the 2024 Supreme Court judgment in the stated terms

The three judge bench allowed the review petitions and set aside the Supreme Court's judgment of 21 August 2024 in the terms it listed. The short order was given on 13 July 2026. The detailed reasons came later and carry the date 29 September 2026.

The bench was Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Justice Aamer Farooq and Justice Syed Arshad Hussain Shah. The respondent was the Monal Group of Companies, which runs the Monal restaurant at Pir Sohawa.

The court said earlier findings of a final nature were made while deciding interim matters in civil suits. It said several people affected were not heard, which Article 10-A of the Constitution protects.

Leases and rent are now disputed facts for a civil court

The FCC held that who is entitled to the restaurant site, the lease, and the rent are disputed questions of fact. They need evidence in a civil court. It set aside the 2024 conclusion that every lease, licence or permission for restaurants in the park had no legal effect.

The CDA, not the wildlife board, regulates building in the park

The court said the Margalla Hills National Park is part of the Islamabad Capital Territory. Approval of construction plans or building for public purposes falls within the CDA's statutory jurisdiction. The park's own law still decides what is allowed there.

The judgment explains that two laws operate together. The CDA handles planning, zoning, land use and building control. The wildlife law decides whether a development is acceptable inside a notified national park. A CDA permission alone cannot make a prohibited activity legal, and a wildlife permission does not replace CDA approval.

The same point matters outside the hills. Anyone building in Islamabad needs to get a building plan approved by the CDA first.

The court did not say the restaurants are lawful or may reopen

The judgment does not declare any restaurant lawful. It says the question of whether a structure harmed the park's purpose depends on evidence and not on an absolute ban. It also notes that public recreation and amenities are allowed, but only where they do not impair the park's object.

Several appeals against the Islamabad High Court's earlier judgment are still pending in the FCC. The court said they must be decided on their own merits, keeping its observations in view. We could not confirm from the court's pages what the current operating status of any restaurant is.

For walkers, nothing in the judgment changes trail access. Distances and times are in the guide to Margalla Hills trails.

What happens next, in order

The court's directions set a path. The civil suits are to be joined, the Federal Government added as a party, and the suits decided quickly on their merits, without being bound by findings of the earlier courts.

1. The pending intra-court appeals are decided on merits in the FCC.
2. The civil suits on lease, ownership and rent are consolidated before one civil court.
3. The Federal Government is made a party to those suits.
4. Any party may file a fresh application for interim relief in the civil court.
5. The civil court decides the consolidated suits on evidence.

Buyers and tenants of anything in Islamabad can use the same habit of checking approvals, as shown in the steps to check if a housing society is approved on the CDA's list.

Common questions

Does the ruling mean the Monal restaurant can stay open?

The judgment does not say that. It sends the lease and rent disputes to a civil court and leaves other appeals pending. We could not confirm the restaurant's present status.

Who regulates construction in the Margalla Hills National Park?

The court held that approval of building plans for public purposes falls within the CDA's jurisdiction. The wildlife law still decides what is environmentally allowed inside the park.

What happens to rent already withdrawn by the wildlife board?

The court directed that any rent withdrawn or recovered by the board under the 2024 judgment be deposited into the public exchequer, to be used lawfully.

Is this a new case or an old one?

It is a review of the Supreme Court's 2024 judgment. The FCC took it over after the 27th Amendment moved such matters to it, and gave a short order on 13 July 2026.

Does this affect other restaurants in the park?

The 2024 declaration covered all leases and permissions for park restaurants, and the FCC set that conclusion aside. Each dispute still has to be decided on its own evidence.

How we verified this

What we checked, where we read it, and what we could not confirm.

Last checked on 13 October 2026, Pakistan time. We read the judgment in Civil Review Petitions No. 825 of 2024 and No. 44 of 2025 on the Federal Constitutional Court judgments page, where it is listed with the date 2 October 2026. We did not check the present condition or opening status of any restaurant, and we have not seen later orders in the pending appeals.