IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT: 
Mr. Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan 
Mr. Justice Sh. Azmat Saeed 
Mr. Justice Maqbool Baqar 
Mr. Justice Ijaz ul Ahsan 
Mr. Justice Mazhar Alam Khan Miankhel 
 
 
 
C.M.A.NOS.8215 AND 6171 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.2144 
OF 2016, C.M.A. NO. 6225 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.2145 OF 
2016, C.M.A. NO.6226 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.2146 OF 
2016, C.M.A. NO.6291 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.2147 OF 
2016 AND CIVIL PETITION NO.3101-L OF 2016  
(Against judgment dated 19.08.2016 of Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Writ Petition 
No.39291 of 2015).  
 
 
 
National Engineering Services Pakistan 
[NESPAK] (Pvt) Limited 
Applicant/Appellant(s) 
(In CMA#8215 & 6171/16 AND Civil 
Appeal No.2144/16)  
 
 
Punjab Mass Transit Authority through its 
Managing Director, Lahore 
Applicant/Appellant(s) 
(In CMA#6225/16 AND Civil Appeal 
No.2145/16) 
   
 
 
Lahore Development Authority through its 
Director General & another 
Applicant/Appellant(s) 
(In CMA#6226/16 AND Civil Appeal 
No.2146/16)  
 
 
Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, 
Lahore and others 
Applicant/Appellant(s) 
(In CMA#6291/16 AND Civil Appeal 
No.2147/16) 
 
 
Civil Society Network through its Chairman 
Petitioner(s) 
(In Civil Petition No.3101-L/16) 
 
 
VERSUS 
 
 
Kamil Khan Mumtaz & others 
Respondent(s) 
(In CMA#8215 & 6171/16 AND Civil 
Appeal No.2144/16; in CMA#6225/16 AND 
Civil Appeal No.2145/16; in CMA#6226/16 
AND Civil Appeal No.2146/16; and in 
CMA#6291/16 
AND 
Civil 
Appeal 
No.2147/16)   
 
 
Province of Punjab through its Chief 
Secretary, Lahore 
Respondent(s) 
 (In Civil Petition No.3101-L/16) 
 
For the Appellant(s) 
: 
Mr. Shahid Hamid, Sr. ASC with 
Mr. Mahmood A. Sheikh, AOR 
assisted by Rabia Hassan, Advocate 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
2
 
Mr. Salman Hafeez, G.M. NESPAK 
(in CA.2144/2016) 
 
 
 
 
: 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC with Mr. 
Tariq Aziz, AOR assisted by Mr. Saad 
Hashmi, Advocate 
Mr. Sarmad Hani, Advocate 
Mr. Sabtain Fazal Haleem, M.D. PMA 
(in CA.2145/2016) 
 
 
 
 
: 
Kh. Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC with  
Mr. Mustafa Ramday, ASC  
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR assisted by  
Mr. Zaafir Khan, Advocate 
Mr. Ahmed Jamal, Advocate 
Israr Saeed, Chief Engineer, LDA 
Muhammad Rashid, Dir(Law), LDA 
Muhammad Hassan, Dy. Dir(E), LDA  
Hafiz Nisar Hussain, A. Dir(Law), LDA 
(in CA.2146/2016) 
 
 
 
 
: 
Mr. Shakeel-ur-Rehman, AG, Punjab. 
Ms. Asma Hamid, Addl.AG Punjab 
Barrister Qasim Ali Chohan, AAG.Pb. 
Rao M. Yousaf Khan, AOR (Absent)  
Mr. Khurram Chughtai, Strategic Counsel 
(in CA 2147/2016). 
 
 
 
For the Petitioner(s) 
: 
Mr. Azhar Siddique, ASC  
Mr. M. Ozair Chughtai, AOR (Absent) 
(in CP#3101-L/16) 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s) 
: 
Ms. Asma Jehangir, Sr. ASC with 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR 
Mr. Kamil Khan Mumtaz assisted by 
Mr. Noor Ejaz Chauhdry, Advocate 
Mr. Hamid Azim Leghari, Advocate 
Ms. Namra Gillani. Advocate 
Ms. Ayesha Alam Malik, Advocate 
Mr. Suleman Jahangir, Advocate 
(in CAs#2144 to 2147/16) 
 
 
 
 
 
Kh. Ahmad Hussain, ASC 
Mr. M. Ozair Chughtai, AOR (Absent) 
(No.2 in CAs#2144 to 2147/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Azhar Siddique, ASC 
Mr. M. Ozair Chughtai, AOR (Absent) 
Assisted by Mr. Abdullah Malik, Adv. 
Mr. Hammyun Faiz Rasool, Advocate 
Mian Shabbir Ismail, Advocate 
Mr. M. Irfan Mukhtar, Advocate 
Ms. Parveen Mughal, Advocate 
Ms. Hifsa Mafia, Advocate 
(No.3 in CA#2144 AND Nos.3-5 in CAs#2145, 2146&2147/16) 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shakeel ur Rehman, AG Punjab 
Ms. Asma Hamid, Addl. AG Punjab 
Barrister Qasim Ali Chouhan, AAG, Pb 
(Government of the Punjab) 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
3
 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rafaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
(No.17 in CAs#2144 & 2146/16; No.19 in CA#2145/16 & No.16 in 
CA#2147/16) 
 
 
 
Dates of Hearing 
: 
3rd to 6th, 10th to 14th & 17th April, 2017 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
 
 
IJAZ UL AHSAN, J-. Having gone through the 
proposed judgment authored by my learned brother (Maqbool 
Baqar, J), I do not find myself in agreement with the same. I, 
therefore, have recorded my own reasons and conclusions for 
accepting the appeals and dismissing the petition which are as 
follows. 
 
2. 
Through this judgment, we propose to decide Civil 
Appeals No.2144 to 2147 of 2016 and Civil Petition No.3101-L of 
2016 as common questions of law and fact have been raised against 
a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore. 
 
3. 
 These Appeals with leave of the Court have arisen out 
of a judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 19.08.2016 
rendered in Writ Petition No.39291 of 2015 (Impugned Judgment). 
Through the Impugned Judgment, the Constitution Petition filed by 
the Respondents challenging various aspects of a mass transit 
project commonly known as “Lahore Orange Line Metro Train 
Project (“OLMT Project”) initiated by Government of the Punjab 
was partly allowed.  
 
4. 
 Briefly stated the facts necessary for decision of these 
appeals and the petition are that Government of the Punjab initiated 
the OLMT Project in order to handle the chronic problem of acute 
traffic congestion and to meet the present and future transportation 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
4
 
requirements of the citizens of Lahore. The original feasibility study 
for a mass transit system for the city of Lahore was undertaken by a 
consulting Firm namely MVA Asia many years ago. The said study 
recommended a network made up of four lines in the following order 
of priority:- 
“i. 
Green Line: Ferozepur Road  (Gajju Matta to Shahdara) 
27km (completed). 
 
ii. 
Orange Line: Multan Road to GT Road (Ali Town to Dera 
Gujjran) 27.1 km (under construction). 
 
iii. 
Blue Line: Jinnah Hall to Green Town 20 km (In future). 
 
iv. 
Purple Line: Data Darbar to Airport 19 km (in future).   
 
5. 
 
The orange line (OLMT) as originally recommended 
was to consist of a 27.1 kilometers track (20.2 kilometers elevated 
and 6.9 kilometers underground) including 26 stations (20 elevated 
and 6 underground) at an aggregate cost of US $ 2.00 billion 
exclusive of cost of land acquisition. The proposed project did not 
see the light of the day, presumably on account of its prohibitive 
cost. 
 
6. 
 The Government of Punjab wished to reduce the cost of 
the OLMT Project. It commissioned NESPAK, one of the best 
companies in the country in the area of infrastructure development, 
having vast local as well as international experience, to re-examine 
the feasibility study prepared by MVA Asia. An addendum to the said 
study was submitted by NESPAK in the year 2014. According to the 
proposal submitted by NESPAK, the length of the track as well as its 
alignment over and under the median of the road remained 
unchanged. However, in order to reduce the cost of the Project, the 
underground portion was reduced to 1.7 kilometers which resulted in 
reduction of the aggregate cost from US $ 2.00 billion to US $ 1.6 
billion. It was recommended that out of the total 27.1 kilometers 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
5
 
length of the route 1.7 kilometers would be a cut and cover segment 
and the remaining 25.4 kilometers would be an elevated viaduct. 
The viaduct of the OLMT Project consists of ‘U’ shaped girders (two 
separate channel shaped track ways of pre-stressed/concrete) 
resting on piers which are 30 meters apart. The viaduct system is 
supported by piles and a pile cap substructure system. The 1.85 
meters thick pile cap consists of 6 piles of 1.2 meters diameter and 
18 meters length. Piers of the viaduct are of 1.2 meters diameter. 
The height of the piers is approximately 13.5 meters. A 10 meter 
long transom rests over the top of each pier to support the ‘U’ 
shaped girders.  
 
7. 
 In the 1.7 kilometers cut and cover portion (underground 
section), the construction methodology is to erect barricades on 
either side of the road, about 12 meters apart. Holes of a diameter of 
0.76 meters are drilled in straight lines on either side of the road. 
Iron cages are lowered into the holes and these are filled with 
concrete. Thereafter, the area in-between is excavated to a depth of 
3 meters and a reinforced concrete roof 0.8 meters thick is 
constructed, joining the tunnel formed by the roof and the piles on 
either side with a clear height of 5.60 meters. Thereafter, a concrete 
slab of 0.6 meters is laid on the floor of the tunnel. All wall gaps 
(0.31 to 0.45 meters wide) in between the concrete piles are covered 
with water proofing and vibration dampening materials.             
 
8. 
 The system is designed to run B1 type trains (according 
to Chinese standards). Each train consists of 5 bogies. The axel load 
of a B1 type bogie (loaded) is 140 kN and that of an empty one is 80 
kN. The proposed OLMT Project has a total of 26 stations, 24 of 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
6
 
which are elevated while the remaining 2 are underground. The 
projected ridership is an average of 2,45,000 passengers per day. 
According to the appellants, more than 46% of the civil works 
corresponding with the total estimated cost of the Project had been 
completed till 30th of August, 2016 and another 30 to 40% of the civil 
works were likely to be completed in the next 6 to 8 months. 
 
9. 
 The main dispute raised before the High Court related 
to the impact of the proposed OLMT Project on various heritage 
sites and special premises as defined in the Antiquities Act, 1975 
[the Act of 1975] and the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) 
Ordinance, 
1985 
[the 
Ordinance 
of 
1985], 
and 
the 
NOC’s/permission letters granted by the concerned departments to 
undertake the OLMT Project. 
 
10. 
 According to the Respondents, the following sites were 
covered under the Act of 1975 and the Ordinance of 1985, which 
were likely to be affected in view of their respective distances from 
various structures of the proposed Project and therefore required 
protection:- 
PROTECTED PREMISES (under the Act of 1975)  
i. 
Shalamar Garden (approximately 29 meters away from the train 
track) 
ii. 
Gulabi Bagh Gateway (21 meters away from the train track) 
iii. 
Buddu’s Tomb (18.1 meters away from the train track) 
iv. 
Chauburji (16 meters away from the train tack) 
v. 
Zaibunnisa’s Tomb (33 meters away from the train track) 
 
SPECIAL PREMISES (under the Ordinance of 1985) 
 
i. 
Lakshmi Building (9.3 meters away from the train track) 
ii. 
General Post Office (GPO) (3.6 meters away from the train track) 
iii. 
Aiwan-e-Auqaf (Shah Chiragh) Building (20.1 meters away from 
the train track) 
iv. 
Supreme Court, Lahore Registry Building (3.72 meters away 
from the train track) 
v. 
Saint Andrew’s Church (1.9 meters away from the train track) 
(Not declared as a “Special Premises” under the Ordinance of 
1985). 
vi. 
Mauj Darya Shrine and the Mosque (4.8 meters away from the 
train track). 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
7
 
11. 
 It appears that any development scheme within a 
distance of 200 feet of an immovable antiquity, a protected site or 
special premises requires sanction by the competent authority. The 
procedure for obtaining such sanction is provided in Section 11 of 
the Ordinance of 1985 and Section 22 of the Act of 1975. For ease 
of reference, the relevant provisions are reproduced below:- 
 “Section 11: Execution of development schemes and new 
constructions in proximity to Special Premises.— No 
development plan or scheme or new construction on, or within a 
distance of two hundred feet of a Special Premises shall be 
undertaken or executed except with the approval of the 
Government or a Committee. 
AND 
 Section 22: Execution of development schemes and new 
constructions 
in 
proximity 
to 
immovable 
antiquity.– 
Notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time 
being in force, no development plan or scheme or new 
construction on, or within a distance of two hundred feet of, a 
protected immovable antiquity shall be undertaken or executed 
except with the approval of the Director General. 
 
12. 
 The Ordinance of 1985 and the Act of 1975 provide an 
adequate and effective mechanism and statutory framework to 
safeguard and protect heritage sites. These also identify the 
authorities required to enforce these laws. A buffer zone of 200 feet 
has been created around the heritage sites. However considering 
that it may not be possible to enforce the 200 feet buffer zone in all 
cases and under all circumstances, the competent authorities have 
been empowered to permit development plans, schemes and 
construction (as the case may be). However, such permission can 
be granted by the competent authority after due application of mind 
to the facts, circumstances and nature of each project and after 
satisfying itself that all necessary steps will be taken to ensure that 
the heritage site in question will not be destroyed, damaged or 
adversely affected.  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
8
 
13. 
 The record indicates that the requisite applications 
alongwith relevant data were filed with the concerned Departments, 
which issued a ‘No Objection Certificate’ on 16.11.2015 for 
construction of the OLMT Project along the alignment of five heritage 
buildings protected under the Act of 1975. Similarly, another ‘No 
Objection Certificate’ was issued on 30.11.2015 in respect of the 
aforesaid special premises protected under the Ordinance of 1985. 
14. 
 The Respondents inter alia challenged issuance of the 
aforesaid NOCs. By order dated 28.01.2016, a Bench of the Lahore 
High Court suspended the said NOCs and restrained the appellants 
from carrying on any construction activity within 200 feet of the said 
buildings. Faced with this situation, the matter was referred to and 
re-examined by an Advisory Committee constituted in terms of the 
Act of 1975 under the Chairmanship of the Director General, 
Archaeology. It was decided to request the Lahore Development 
Authority (“LDA”) to engage an independent structural engineer to 
evaluate the effect of OLMT Project on the aforesaid buildings 
during construction and operational phases. The Committee also 
decided to engage the services of Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers to 
conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment [HIA] of the OLMT Project.  
15. 
 Pursuant to the above decision, Dr. Engr. Javed Uppal 
was appointed as the independent structural engineer for evaluating 
the effect of the Project on the aforesaid buildings during the 
construction and operation phases of the Project. He submitted his 
assessment report on 24.02.2016. Likewise, Dr. Rogers submitted 
her report on 05.03.2016. The said reports as well as other material, 
information and data were examined by the Committee. In light of 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
9
 
the said examination of data, reports, recommendations and findings 
new NOCs/permissions were issued by the competent authorities, 
which were stated to be in continuation of the earlier permissions. 
These incorporated stringent conditions and requirements to be 
fulfilled during various phases of the Project. These were presented 
before the Bench of the High Court hearing the matters. However, 
these permissions were also rejected by the Bench holding that the 
said experts were neither independent nor impartial in view of the 
fact that they had allegedly undertaken some work at some stage for 
Government of the Punjab or had been associated, in a professional 
capacity with the said Government in the past. The Constitution 
Petition was ultimately accepted in the terms reproduced below:- 
 “i) 
The original NOCs dated 16.11.2015, 30.11.2015 and all 
revised NOCs dated 06.05.2016 and all addendum 
NOCs dated 20.5.2016 under the Act of 1975 and 
Ordinance of 1985 are set aside being issued without 
lawful authority and of no legal effect. Consequently, the 
respondents shall not carry out any construction within 
distance of 200 feet of protected immovable antiquity and 
special premises mentioned in para 24 of this judgment.  
 
ii) 
The Director General Archaeology is directed to engage 
independent consultants consisting of panel of experts of 
international status preferably in consultation with 
UNESCO to carry out fresh independent study/report 
regarding protected immovable antiquities and special 
premises. 
 
iii) 
The request for permission under Section 22 of the Act of 
1975 and under Section 11 of the Ordinance of 1985 will 
be considered afresh by the competent authorities in the 
light 
of 
study/report 
by 
independent 
experts 
of 
international status referred above. 
 
iv) 
To structure the discretion of competent authorities for 
future permissions under Section 22 of the Act of 1975 
and Section 11 of the Ordinance of 1985, the 
Government is directed to frame rules under Section 37 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
10
 
of the Act of 1975 and Section 16 of the Ordinance of 
1985. 
 
v) 
This petition to the extent of Environmental Approvals 
dated 09.7.2015 and 09.5.2016 is dismissed being not 
maintainable. 
However, 
the 
recommendations 
of 
Advisory Committee on environment (constituted under 
section 5(6) of the Act of 1997) in its report dated 
07.5.2016 will be implemented in letter and spirit by the 
authorities concerned”.  
16. 
 When the matter came up for hearing before this Court, 
after a preliminary hearing, it was clear to us that the bone of 
contention between the parties was the credibility and technical 
reliability of the original reports submitted by NESPAK. In passing, 
doubts were also raised about the reports filed by Dr. Uppal and Dr. 
Rogers, more so, on their impartiality rather than the merit and 
technical soundness of their respective reports. It was therefore 
clear and obvious to us that the concerns of the Respondents i.e. 
the accuracy and technical soundness of the report of NESPAK and 
credibility of the experts and their reports needed to be verified and 
counter checked by sending the reports and all relevant technical 
material and information to an independent expert to seek his 
opinion on the contents of the report. These had been questioned by 
the Respondents and discarded by the High Court. In our view the 
opinion of an independent expert could enable us to resolve this 
controversy.  
17. 
 On our query, the learned counsel for the Respondents 
quite readily and learned counsel for the Appellants after some 
hesitation agreed to such course of action. We therefore directed 
both parties to propose names of at least three independent experts 
out of whom we could appoint one to undertake this exercise. Both 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
11
 
parties submitted names of different experts. In order to ensure that 
fairness and impartiality was maintained, we decided to nominate 
two experts, one out of the three proposed by each side. 
Accordingly, we nominated Mr. Robin Cunningham, a Professor in 
the Department of Archaeology, University of Durham, United 
Kingdom, proposed by the Respondents and M/s TYPSA – Asian 
Consulting Engineers (Pvt) Ltd. JV (“TYPSA”) proposed by the 
appellants to undertake an exercise of re-verification and provide us 
their opinion on various technical aspects of the report of NESPAK. 
The Government of the Punjab was directed to bear all expenses for 
both experts and parties were directed to provide all documentation, 
material, data and information that the experts may possibly require 
for making their independent assessment/re-verification of the 
reports submitted by NESPAK. Vide our order dated 14.10.2016 the 
experts were given 30 days time to finalize their reports and submit 
the same before this Court. The reports were filed with some delay 
which occurred on account of logistical reasons but is of no 
relevance at this stage. The parties were called upon to submit their 
objections. The parties filed their objections whereafter arguments 
on the objections as well as the main appeals were heard by us.  
18. 
 Despite the fact that the controversy had been narrowed 
down to re-verification of credibility of the NESPAK reports dated 
July, 2015 and February, 2016, in the context of Act of 1975 and the 
Ordinance of 1985, detailed arguments on all aspects of the case 
were addressed by the parties. Learned counsel for the appellants 
namely Mr. Shahid Hamid, Sr.ASC (in Civil Appeal No.2144 of 
2016); Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr.ASC (in Civil Appeal No.2145 of 
2016); Kh. Haris Ahmed, Sr.ASC (in Civil Appeal No.2146 of 2016); 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
12
 
and Mr. Shakeel-ur-Rehman, Advocate General Punjab (in Civil 
Appeal No.2147 of 2017) addressed detailed arguments in support 
of their respective appeals. They not only defended the reports 
submitted by NESPAK in July, 2015 and February, 2016 but also 
reinforced their arguments by the contents of the report submitted by 
M/s TYPSA - Asia which according to them fully supported, re-
verified and confirmed the accuracy and credibility of the reports 
earlier submitted by the NESPAK. They also pointed out that the 
report of Professor Robin Cunningham was quite general in nature 
and dealt more with the legal interpretation of the provisions of the 
Act of 1975 and the Ordinance of 1985. It did not advert to the 
technical aspects of the reports of NESPAK, Dr. Uppal and Dr. 
Rogers and was therefore not of much help with reference to the 
credibility of the reports which were the subject matter of the 
controversy before this Court. 
19. 
 Learned counsel for the Respondents, including Mrs. 
Asma Jahangir and Kh. Ahmad Hussain, ASCs on the other hand 
made half-hearted attempts to challenge the credibility of the reports 
of M/s TYPSA – Asia as well as NESPAK but unfortunately, without 
submitting any technical data or information to counter, discredit or 
dislodge the conclusions and opinions recorded in the said reports. 
However, owing to the technical nature of the reports and in the 
absence of any counter report, data or information they could not 
come up with anything convincing that could persuade us to discard 
the said reports. As a last resort, they also relied upon the expertise 
of Mr. Kamil Khan Mumtaz, who was one of petitioners before the 
High Court. Mr. Mumtaz gave us a presentation on multimedia and 
also provided hard copies of his presentation for our assistance. We 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
13
 
have carefully examined the material provided by him. We were also 
shown real time footage made with the help of Drone mounted 
cameras on multi media and computer simulations of the OLMT 
Project on projection screens installed in the Court Room. In 
addition, enlarged recent photographs of the Project and the location 
and condition of the protected sites were also filed depicting various 
stages of work in progress at various locations with the object of 
giving us a clear understanding of the situation on the ground and 
contextualizing the arguments submitted by both sides.  
20. 
 We also granted permission to Mr. Mumtaz to address 
us. He explained to us that the effect of vibrations (expected to 
emanate during the construction phase of the Project and operation 
of the train) on monuments depended on the following factors:- 
i) 
Magnitude of vibration produced by a particular action; 
ii) 
Distance between vibration source and the vibration 
receiver; 
iii) 
The condition of the monument; and 
iv) 
The nature of mediums through which it travels to the 
receiver (soil and concrete etc). 
21. 
 His presentation while useful in an academic sense was 
helpful in understanding the general concepts but did not, in our 
opinion, directly address the issue before us. Further, it did not, in 
any material way, challenge or displace the opinions and 
conclusions of NESPAK, Dr. Uppal, Dr. Rogers or TYPSA.  
22. 
 We have considered the arguments of the learned 
counsel for the parties and carefully examined the various 
documents and reports placed on the record. It appears that a 
Project of this nature involves emanation and transmission of 
potentially harmful vibrations for old buildings and structures at two 
stages i.e. the construction phase and the operational phase. At the 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
14
 
construction stage, operation of heavy construction machinery, 
particularly, drills, pile drivers, excavators pavement breakers and 
other impact devices create seismic waves that radiate along the 
surface of the earth and downward into the earth. These vibrations 
in excess of certain levels have the potential to cause damage to a 
building as well as its foundation. The manner in which a particular 
building will respond to such vibration depends on many factors 
including the type of soil on which the building is founded, the age, 
type and state of foundation of the building, the mass and stiffness 
of main structural elements of the building, the condition of the 
building as a whole and the level and frequency of its maintenance. 
Assessment of susceptibility to vibration has to be taken into account 
while setting vibration limits. The operational phase covers all 
parameters that relate to the operation of trains. Factors such as 
speed, the condition of suspension system installed on the trains, 
the condition of the wheels, the quality, material and condition of the 
rails on which the train will operate and the measures taken to 
absorb/reduce transmission of vibration to surrounding areas are 
some of the factors to be kept in mind.  
23. 
 
The reports submitted by NESPAK, Dr. Uppal and Dr. 
Rogers suggested that there was no real danger to the protected or 
special premises which were situated in the vicinity of the Project. 
However, to be on the safe side they suggested additional remedial 
and protective safeguards and measures. These were duly 
incorporated in the NOCs and permission letters issued by the 
Director General, Archaeology. However, these were rejected by the 
High Court. In order to determine the validity of the reports and to 
verify accuracy of the same with the consent of the parties, the same 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
15
 
were sent to independent experts for their objective opinion. The 
report submitted by TYPSA was found by us to be most relevant. It 
directly addressed the concerns of the Respondents. Relevant parts 
of the said report are summarized below:-   
a) 
The 
description 
of 
the 
viaduct 
is 
complete 
and 
comprehensive as a general description. 
 
b) 
A pile of 13.5 m seems to have been simulated and in the 
SAP model, which does not include the viaduct desk, the 
POT bearings and the upper part with the platform, track 
and other concrete elements such as lateral parapets, the 
pile is 8m in height approximately. Thus, the modeled pile 
is significantly smaller than the real ones in any case and 
since the density of the concrete has not been 
corrected/adjusted to compensate the geometry difference, 
the modeled pile is also significantly lighter than the real 
ones. This assumption gives higher vibration on results 
than to be anticipated and is considered to be a 
conservative approach adopted in the report by NESPAK. 
 
c) 
POT bearings are commonly used between viaducts piers 
and desks and introduce a resonance frequency. These 
POT bearings are designed to bring a relatively low 
resonance frequency. Thus, their influence would lead to 
lower vibration levels. The POT bearings have not been 
modeled, it can safely be said that more conservative and 
safe parameters have been used and the vibration values 
given in NESPAK reports are higher than the expected 
values during operation of the trains. 
 
d) 
The 
description 
of 
the 
tunnel 
is 
complete 
and 
comprehensive. 
e) 
The description of the rolling stock is comprehensive, 
although the speed data is missing in the report. It is very 
relevant parameter, which affects directly the dynamic 
loads on the track. It has further been indicated that the 
modeled speed is 70 km/h as in the Xia paper. It is 
considered correct, taking into account the maximum 
speed is 80 km/h and the average commercial speed is 
34.6 km/h. It is a conservative assumption, since stations 
are close by and thus, speed is reduced and vibrations will 
be lower. 
 
FEA MODEL: 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
16
 
 
 
 
The description of the FEA model is comprehensive. 
a) 
The viaduct model consists of pier, pile cap, the piles and 
surrounding soil. The viaduct desk and the track affect the 
total mass whereas the track usually includes vibration 
damping elements, mainly the fastening system. NESPAK 
models include indirectly these elements through the use 
of the Xia force and thus, the model will be overestimating 
the real vibrations, which shows a conservative but safe 
model has been adopted. 
b) 
The backup material of the underground part indicates that 
vibration isolators/dampers will be provided which will lead 
to lower levels of vibration. Thus, vibration values higher 
than what would be expected are reported and the 
approach is safe. 
c) 
A 2D model has been used. It is assumed that the 
geometry is constant and infinite in the longitudinal 
direction. It is correct in the case of the viaduct, but in a 2D 
model of a viaduct, the properties of all the modeled 
materials generally need to be adjusted: the ground or the 
rails can be considered infinite in the longitudinal direction 
but not the piers of the viaduct and thus, their properties 
(mass and stiffness) need to be adjusted. This seems to 
have been done through the calibration with a 3D model, 
which is acceptable and safe. 
d) 
A module of elasticity of 2000 MPa is indicated for the 
ground and around 20.000 MPa for the pile concrete. This 
is a conservative approach that has given higher values of 
vibration in the report than those expected during 
operation. 
e) 
Vertical force at the top of pier is determined from the 
dynamic train model of Xia. The result is a load history 
whose maximum value is 660 kN approximately, which is a 
high value for a Metro vehicle. However, this force is 
discretized every 0.25 s and thus, it corresponds to a 
sample frequency of 4 Hz, which only allows analyzing 
very low frequencies. 
f) 
These calculations are quasi static and valid for structural 
issues. The viaduct and the tunnel seem to be modeled 
without any node and the ground is with 4 nodes shell 
elements with a 1x1 m mesh size in the case of the tunnel 
and 2x2 m in the case of viaduct. This mesh size allows 
getting reliable results which would be acceptable. 
g) 
As additional safety measures NESPAK indicates that 
track details will be provided by the Chinese contractor 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
17
 
including dampers, a 600 mm thick flexible sand cushion 
material under the bottom slab supporting track, and 
isolating cork material behind the wall in addition to the 
waterproofing layer. These mitigation measures have not 
been used in the FEA analysis and act as a further 
cushion/reserve capacity as safeguard against the actual 
vibration expected at the heritage and special premises 
buildings. 
h) 
We also fully agree with the suggestion that during the 
construction and at the commissioning time, noise and 
vibrations should be measured/monitored to make sure 
that the vibration and noise remain within the acceptable 
limits. 
 
VIBRATION EFFECTS ON HERITAGE BUILDINGS:  
The vibration levels have been calculated according to the 
methodology analyzed before and the results are assessed 
according to the DIN 4150-3; 1999 and DECC’s standards. 
German standards have been used by NESPAK for comparison 
which are one of the most stringent available standards. 
 
VIBRATION EFFECTS OF CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES: 
a) 
The vibration effects of the construction equipment are 
estimated based on the CALTRAN’s method. This seems 
to be adequate and it can be assumed that the maximum 
allowable values are the same as analyzed before for the 
operation phase according to the DIN 4150-3 standard. 
The reports state that the vibration levels at underground 
critical sites are within the allowable limits, which is correct. 
b) 
The vibration levels associated separately to each 
equipment have also been received. This can always be 
controlled at site by not allowing machines to work 
simultaneously near the heritage sites. 
 
CONCLUSIONS: 
 
The NESPAK reports seem to be very serious and complete from 
structural point of view. It is relevant with respect to safety and 
stability of buildings both during the construction stage and under 
train 
operation. 
The 
approach 
adopted 
by 
NESPAK 
is 
conservative. The NESPAK reports rightly conclude that the levels 
obtained by calculation will be within the permissible limits and 
there will be no adverse effect on any of these sites. It is 
concluded that the reports of NESPAK are compliant with 
international codes and standards and the subject studies are 
comprehensive and complete with reference to the subject and 
the results are correct and within acceptable limits. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
18
 
24. 
 We are not experts in the fields of architectural, 
structural or mechanical engineering, and do not claim any expertise 
in the field of vibration sciences. We therefore have to rely upon the 
reports and opinions of the experts submitted before us. These are 
prima facie credible owing to the fact that they have been confirmed 
and reconfirmed by independent experts and have by far remained 
un-rebutted. 
25. 
 During the course of arguments and on perusal of the 
reports, the aspect of visual impairment of heritage sites has also 
been highlighted. It has been pointed out that in addition to physical 
impairment of protected or special premises, the aspect of visual 
impairment of such premises also needs to be factored in. Visual 
impairment occurs when the proposed development/installation or 
structure blocks the view of the premises or distracts an onlooker 
from appreciating the intrinsic beauty of such premises/structure. It 
has been argued that in the case of some of the sites, which are 
subject matter of these proceedings, there is a possibility of visual 
impairment that may have a negative impact on the heritage sites 
which are sought to be protected. We would, therefore, keep the 
said factor in mind during the course of our discussion.  
26. 
 We 
would, 
however, 
confine 
ourselves 
to 
the 
examination of material as well as dealing with the arguments 
advanced by the learned counsels for the parties regarding three 
major aspects of the case namely, the construction phase, the 
operational phase and the aspect of visual impairment in the light of 
opinions of experts in their respective fields. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
19
 
27. 
 As far as the construction phase of the OLMT Project is 
concerned, the learned counsel for the appellants have pointed out 
that other than the 11 sites regarding which a restraining order had 
been issued by the High Court, a major part of the construction work 
on the Project has already been completed. This statement has not 
seriously been contested by the Respondents. This is also evident 
from the photographs placed on record and the real time footage 
seen by us. Further, there is no evidence of any damage caused to 
any building in the vicinity of the line on account of the construction 
work done so far. We have been informed that 8250 holes were to 
be excavated/drilled along the 25.4 kilometers elevated track. Out of 
these 8028 holes have already been drilled / excavated / capped/ 
filled. A large number of holes falling within 200 feet of the 
monuments/premises (subject matter of these appeals) had also 
been drilled before the High Court issued a restraining order. These 
include 74 out of 164 holes within 200 feet of Shalamar Garden; 39 
out of 39 within 200 feet of Gulabi Bagh; 30 out of 30 within 200 feet 
of Buddu’s Tomb; 19 out of 48 within 200 feet of Lakshmi Mansion; 
43 out of 48 within 200 feet of Chauburji; and 10 out of 45 holes 
within 200 feet of Zaibunnisa’s Tomb. 
28. 
 The 
learned 
Advocate 
General, 
Punjab, 
has 
categorically stated that no damage of any nature has been caused 
to any building on either side of 25.4 kilometers elevated track 
including the 5 protected and one special premises, as a result of 
the completed excavation/ drilling/ filling/capping work. This 
categoric statement has neither been contested nor denied by the 
Respondent at any stage.  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
20
 
29. 
 With regard to the cut and cover portion of the track, we 
have been informed that 3693 holes are to be excavated/drilled 
along the 1.7 kilometers underground track. Each of these holes has 
a diameter of 0.76 meters i.e. substantially less than 1.20 meters 
diameter of the holes in the elevated portion. All the excavations are 
to be undertaken on the road surface i.e. inside the footpaths on 
either side of the road using highly sophisticated drilling equipment 
that creates minimal vibration. 1862 holes have already been drilled/ 
excavated/ filled/concretized and tunnels excavated on either end of 
the 1.7 kilometers cut and cover length. No damage has so far been 
caused or reported to any building or structure on either side of the 
roads on which these 1862 piles have been completed and tunnels 
excavated/capped. This statement of the learned Advocate General, 
Punjab too has remained unrebutted.  
30. 
 From the material placed before us, which is based on 
verified data (not seriously contested by the Respondents), it is clear 
and obvious that so far despite full fledged construction activity no 
damage has been caused to any building / premises along the entire 
route of the OLMT Project. The Respondents did produce some 
photographs showing cracks in the wall of GPO and displacement of 
some bricks at Chauburji. However, on closer examination and 
seeking further information from the concerned quarters, it transpired 
that such damage had occurred on account of age of the building, 
normal wear and tear because of natural causes, environmental 
factors, seismic activity and earthquakes, etc which had occurred in 
the past, much before commencement of the OLMT Project. These 
had no nexus or connection with the construction activity relating to 
the said Project.  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
21
 
31. 
 It may be appreciated that most of the protected and 
special premises are located in the midst of heavily populated areas 
surrounded by dense, haphazard, unplanned and unregulated, 
commercial and residential construction. Roads have been 
constructed in close proximity to these sites on which heavy 
vehicular traffic including heavily loaded trucks, trailers, buses and 
other transport vehicles ply throughout the year round the clock. This 
activity has gone on for decades. Such traffic creates much higher 
levels of vibration compared to the level of vibrations expected to be 
created during the construction and operational phases of the OLMT 
Project. However, no significant damage to any of the heritage sites 
has been attributed to vibrations emanating from heavy vehicular 
traffic on these roads.   
32. 
 It is common knowledge that ancient buildings suffer 
damage and decay on account of passage of time, elements of 
nature, extremities of weather, environmental factors, seismic 
activity and earthquakes, etc. These cannot be preserved indefinitely 
unless serious and planned effort is made to constantly repair, 
maintain, renovate, restore and reconstruct the damaged portions. It 
is indeed unfortunate that very little serious effort has so far been 
made to implement and enforce measures to protect, preserve, 
repair and restore such sites. The matter came to fore and was 
highlighted 
once construction work 
on the OLMT 
Project 
commenced.  
33. 
 We are constrained to observe that serious efforts need 
to be made by the concerned departments and agencies to 
preserve, conserve, restore and protect heritage sites and where 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
22
 
necessary, renovate, not only the sites which are the subject matter 
of these proceedings but all other sites of historic significance on a 
continual basis. This can be done by employing experts in their 
respective fields and allocating the requisite funds generously to 
finance such projects on long term basis. In this regard, we would 
issue appropriate directions to the concerned authorities in the later 
part of this judgment. Suffice it to say at this stage that, on our query, 
the learned Advocate General, Punjab under instructions, gave an 
undertaking that a sum of Rupees One Hundred Million would 
immediately be allocated to the Archaeology Department for the 
upkeep/maintenance and renovation of the sites which are subject 
matter of the present litigation. 
34. 
 Perusal of the reports submitted by NESPAK and M/s 
TYPSA – Asia which uses German “DIN” and US “Caltran” 
standards as benchmarks of acceptable levels of vibrations for old 
buildings / monuments / structures, with reference to the levels of 
vibration expected to be generated during the construction as well 
as operational phases of the OLMT Project indicates that the 
projected vibration levels expected to emanate during the 
construction 
and 
operation 
phases 
would 
remain 
within 
internationally acceptable limits. These levels, according to expert 
opinions placed before us are highly unlikely to cause any damage 
or deterioration to the protected and special premises. However, in 
our view a cautious approach has to be adopted. It has been stated 
that different pieces of equipment produce different levels of 
vibration and if various machines are used simultaneously during the 
construction phase, the aggregate levels of vibration may exceed 
acceptable limits. We have specifically confronted the learned 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
23
 
counsel for the Respondents as well as the learned Advocate 
General, Punjab with this observation of the experts. They have, on 
instructions and in consultation with their engineering experts(some 
of whom were present in Court), categorically stated that it would be 
ensured that one piece of equipment is used at any given time while 
undertaking work in the vicinity of the protected and special 
premises in question. If more than one item of equipment is required 
to be used, the aggregate levels of vibration shall not be allowed to 
exceed the acceptable limits as provided in the afore-noted 
international standards.  
35. 
 It has also been undertaken that technical experts shall 
constantly be present at the sites when work is undertaken in the 
vicinity of protected and special premises and all necessary 
equipment for the purpose of monitoring the levels of vibration, shall 
be made available to them. It has further been undertaken that if the 
experts point out any possibility or likelihood of vibration levels 
exceeding acceptable limits, or any damage being caused to any 
protected or special premises, on account of the construction 
activity, work shall immediately be stopped till such time that all 
necessary remedial measures have been taken to the satisfaction of 
the experts to ensure that vibration levels remain within permissible 
limits, and no such damage is caused to any protected or special 
premises on this score. Further, work shall commence only after 
experts have given written clearance for resumption. In this view of 
the matter, we have no reason to disbelieve or doubt the intention of 
the appellants and their bona fides to undertake work on the Project 
without taking undue risk of causing damage or deterioration to a 
protected or special premises. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
24
 
36. 
 The learned counsel for the Respondents were 
repeatedly asked to place on record any material showing that the 
reports of NESPAK, Dr. Uppal or TYPSA were incorrect, erroneous 
or unworthy of reliance. However, other than making generalized 
submissions based on apprehensions they were unable to place any 
credible material on record to discredit the said reports. We notice 
that the High Court also discarded two of these reports without 
examining their veracity or merit on the basis of a misconceived and 
imaginary notion of bias and partiality on the part of NESPAK, Dr. 
Uppal and Dr. Rogers. We are at a loss to understand how the 
reports of credible professionals could so lightly be discarded and 
brushed aside, without an in-depth comparative analysis with 
independent technical reports to be submitted by the Respondents, 
which were never submitted. Simply on the allegation that NESPAK, 
Dr. Uppal and Dr. Rogers had undertaken projects for the 
Respondents in the past and were therefore partial and biased, the 
High Court not only discarded the reports casting unjustified doubts 
about the independence and integrity of the experts but also 
proceeded to throw out conditional permission letters issued by 
authorities competent under the law to do so after due deliberation 
and application of mind to all relevant material. Likewise, the High 
Court tossed out the revised conditional permission letters issued by 
the Director General, Archaeology committee set up for the said 
purpose who were competent to do so, in an offhand, ungracious 
and dismissive manner without assigning any valid justification and 
legally sustainable reasoning. It lost sight of the fact that the revised 
permission letters were issued after examination of all technical data 
and reports of experts and imposed stringent conditions and 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
25
 
incorporated adequate safeguards to address most of the genuine 
concerns of the Respondents. Unfortunately, these aspects were not 
even considered let alone discussed and deliberated upon. We are 
unable to understand why and how the High Court could discard the 
opinions of experts and persons mandated by law to take decisions 
based on such opinions, arrogate such powers to itself and proceed 
to substitute unchallenged and unrebutted technical opinions of 
experts with those of its own despite complete lack of training and 
expertise in the fields of structural engineering and vibration 
sciences. In our opinion, the High Court erred in law and quite 
obviously exceeded its jurisdiction in doing so, without assigning 
valid, cogent, sound and legally sustainable reasons. We are 
therefore, unfortunately, unable to agree with or uphold the findings 
of the learned High Court in this regard. 
37. 
 As far as the operational phase of the Project is 
concerned, even the learned counsel for the Respondents have 
candidly conceded that the vibration levels would be considerably 
lower than those expected during the operational phase. The 
experts have also opined that there is hardly any foreseeable danger 
of occurrence of any damage to the protected or special premises on 
account of operation of the trains in question, provided all necessary 
remedial and mitigating measures suggested by them are adopted 
and put in place. We have further been informed that although the 
maximum design speed of the train is 80 kilometers per hour, the 
train would actually operate at an average speed of 34.8 kilometers 
per hour which would also vary (on the lower side) on account of 
location of 28 stations (more or less one station every one kilometer) 
on the route of the OLMT Project covering a distance of 27.1 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
26
 
kilometers. However, as a matter of abundant caution, we direct and 
the appellants have undertaken to operate the train on experimental 
basis for at least two weeks to test, monitor and ensure that 
vibrations occurring on account of operation of the trains are well 
within acceptable limits. It has also been undertaken that in case 
levels of vibrations emanating from running of the trains exceed 
acceptable limits, operations shall immediately be discontinued and 
all necessary remedial measures will be taken to ensure that 
vibrations are brought down to acceptable limits. Under no 
circumstances shall the train be operated where its operation may 
possibly cause damage to the protected or special premises. In this 
context, we also direct that sophisticated and state of the art 
vibration measuring and monitoring equipment be installed at 
suitable places in or around the protected and special premises to 
constantly monitor the levels of vibration created by operation of the 
train. Further, the Archaeology Department shall constitute special 
teams consisting of qualified experts which will periodically inspect 
all protected and special premises to detect any damage or 
deterioration occurring at the sites for any reason. They shall 
maintain proper records and logbooks for the said purpose. They 
shall bring all necessary facts relating to the condition of the 
antiquities and special premises to the notice of the Director 
General, Archaeology who will take all steps necessary to ensure 
safety and long term preservation of the buildings and structures in 
question.  
38. 
 We have also been informed that all requisite 
information and data relating to the operational phase was verified 
through state of the art systems using XIA. H. Zang methodology 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
27
 
and alignment analysis was conducted by Finite Element Analysis 
(FEA). The results which were based on actual verified data show 
that the vibration levels likely to occur at the operational stage would 
remain well below internationally acceptable limits. Despite 
supportive opinions of experts and as a matter of abundant caution, 
we also direct that the citizens and community may also be involved 
in the monitoring process; a hotline may be established, telephone 
number whereof shall be prominently displayed in public areas 
around all antiquities and special premises. Tourists, visitors and 
members of the community should be encouraged to report any 
damage or deterioration observed in the protected or special 
premises for any reason to the competent authorities. If any such 
information is received, the same shall be investigated by a team of 
experts appointed by the Director General, Archaeology within 15 
days of such information being reported. The team shall suggest 
ways and means to repair/restore any damage or deterioration that 
may have occurred to any antiquity or protected premises for any 
reason. On recommendations being received, the Archaeology 
Department shall commence repair/renovation work without any 
delay and the requisite funds shall be made available by the 
concerned quarters within 30 days of a request being made.  
39. 
 As far as the question of visual impairment is 
concerned, we note that all protected and special premises are 
located in heavily populated areas of the city. Unplanned localities 
and townships have sprung up around and in close proximity to such 
buildings. Construction has been undertaken haphazardly and 
without any sort of planning or regulation which has seriously 
compromised the visual integrity of most of the protected and special 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
28
 
premises. The report submitted by Dr. Rogers suggests remedial 
measures. These appear to be effective and practical and must be 
implemented. In a later part of this judgment, we would pass 
appropriate directions in this regard.  
40. 
 We have also been informed that a buffer Zone was 
proposed around Shalamar Garden many years ago. It was 
recommended that encroachments in the Zone be removed and it be 
converted into a green area with proper landscaping to restore and 
enhance the grandeur, glory and beauty of the Garden. The said 
recommendations have been lying in cold storage and become 
victims of procrastination and red tapism. We direct that positive 
steps may be taken to implement the said recommendations as far 
as practicable within a reasonable timeframe.      
41. 
The Respondents have primarily raised objections 
relating to the visual impairment of two sites namely Shalamar 
Garden and Chauburji. As far as Chauburji is concerned, we have 
found that some visual impairment many occur because of the 
alignment of the viaduct which passes at a short distance from the 
structure. We have carefully examined the possibility of directing 
alteration of the alignment of the viaduct or directing that the said 
portion be constructed underground. However, we have been 
informed by experts (which information has not been rebutted) that 
realignment is not possible for a host of technical reasons in addition 
to the fact that the area is densely populated with private properties. 
Any realignment would entail considerable human cost in the form of 
large scale cause displacement of families, in addition to prohibitive 
increase in the cost of the Project. The idea of an underground 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
29
 
tunnel though attractive at first glance is fraught with technical 
difficulties including the fact that underground streams carrying 
waste water from various localities of Lahore pass under the 
proposed alignment. It would therefore be almost impossible to 
construct an underground tunnel with the available technical and 
financial resources. There is no other feasible option except to rely 
on remedial and mitigating measures suggested by Dr. Rogers in 
her report. We accordingly order that all such measures and steps 
recommended by her be implemented in letter and spirit.  
42. 
 As far as the visual impairment of Shalamar Garden is 
concerned, we note that there is no significant visual impairment of 
the said location. This is in view of the fact that the Garden is 
surrounded by clusters of residential and commercial buildings of all 
shapes and sizes as well as busy roads. A densely populated 
township has developed on three sides of the Garden. A busy dual 
carriage way (GT Road) runs on the fourth side.  However, 
fortunately the Garden has high walls around it. A person standing in 
the street cannot see inside the Garden from the street level. As 
such, there is no question of any visual impairment. A person 
walking in the Garden may possibly be able to see glimpses of the 
viaduct or the train from certain points. This aspect does not stricto 
sensu constitute visual impairment. However, even this issue can 
adequately and effectively be addressed by adopting remedial and 
mitigating measures recommended by experts.  
43. 
 The learned counsel for the Respondents have 
vehemently argued that the viaduct passes over/at a very close 
distance from the Hydraulic Tank of Shalamar Garden which is 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
30
 
situated outside the Garden. We have carefully gone through the 
photographs as well as the structural sketches submitted by both 
parties. We find that the hydraulic tank is in a state of total disrepair 
and has undergone considerable deterioration. We have been 
assured that there is no likelihood of any further damage to the said 
hydraulic tank by reason of construction of some piers supporting 
the viaduct, close to it. We would however direct the Archaeology 
Department as well as the Government of Punjab to ensure that the 
hydraulic tank is repaired/restored as far as possible to its original 
position. Such further steps may also be taken, as may be 
necessary, so that further deterioration or damage is not caused to 
the structure of hydraulic tanks.  
44. 
 In addition to Shalamar Garden, we notice that the 
elevated track of OLMT passes near some other sites which are 
subject matter of these proceedings. All these sites exist on 
thoroughfares and are surrounded (at in some cases hidden) by 
heavy urban development. None of these sites has a visual 
landscape integrity. Therefore, the visual impact of construction of 
the elevated track will be of no material consequence for the 
purpose of visual landscape obstruction of such sites.  
45. 
 The learned counsel for the Respondents were 
vehement in their assertion that UNESCO had threatened to remove 
Shalamar Garden from the list of World Heritage sites, unless work 
on the OLMT Project was immediately stopped. However, the 
decisions adopted in the 41st Committee Meeting which are available 
on the website of UNESCO do not support the claim of learned 
counsel for the Respondents. The emphasis of UNESCO World 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
31
 
Heritage Committee appears to be on control and monitoring of 
urban encroachments and to discuss measures relating to 
management and protection arrangements of the Garden. It has 
nowhere been stated that the Garden will be removed from the list of 
World Heritage sites if the Project goes ahead. However, 
considering that Shalamar Garden features in the list of world 
heritage sites, we direct that every possible effort be made to meet 
the recommendations of UNESCO by way of taking mitigating and 
remedial measures. Further, the Appellants in collaboration with 
UNESCO shall adopt all practicable measures to control and monitor 
urban encroachments and explore the possibility of creating a buffer 
zone by coordinating efforts of all concerned departments.   
46. 
 
It has also been pointed out to us that the OLMT Project 
will actually improve accessibility to antiquities and special premises 
for local as well as international tourists. This is in view of the fact 
that the roads leading to such sites are highly congested making the 
commute from most parts of the city, time consuming, cumbersome 
and difficult. Further, the views from elevated vantage points are 
likely to attract and encourage tourists to visit the sites and 
appreciate their historic value. 
47. 
 We have been informed that Lahore is one of the few 
cities in the world with population in excess of 10 million which do 
not have a mass transit train system. London developed its first 
metro system in 1843. More than 150 cities of various sizes all over 
the world have had rapid transit train systems for decades. In scores 
of cities in Asia, Africa and Latin America, such systems are 
currently under construction. The citizens of Lahore also deserve an 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
32
 
efficient, affordable and environmentally friendly mass transit system 
to cater for their current and future transportation needs. Even the 
Respondents admit that a mass transit system is the only viable 
solution to address the issue of traffic congestion on the roads and 
absence of adequate and affordable transport facilities for the rapidly 
increasing population of Lahore. It has been submitted by the 
Respondents that they do not oppose the Project. Their objection is 
limited to the mode and manner in which it is being implemented 
near some of the sites mentioned above.    
48. 
 All over the world, where heritage sites are located 
within cities, the development of the cities is planned in a manner so 
as to maintain a balance between infrastructural development while 
retaining/preserving and maintaining the heritage sites. This is often 
a difficult balance to maintain, but a number of cities all over the 
world have successfully managed to do so. London, Rome, Istanbul, 
Beijing, Delhi, Jaipur, etc are but a few examples. We have no 
reason to believe that this cannot be done in Lahore. There can be 
no two views about the importance of our historical and heritage 
sites and the need to preserve and protect them and to safely pass 
them on to the future generations. But the same need not be at the 
cost of depriving the citizens of Lahore of an efficient, reliable, 
dependable and modern mass transit system and to force them to 
live with an outdated, overstrained, inefficient and expensive system 
which in addition to all its faults is badly polluting the city pushing air 
pollution to levels, many times the safe and internationally 
acceptable limits. Preservation and development are not mutually 
exclusive and can go side by side complementing each other as has 
successfully been accomplished in many cities of the world. All it 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
33
 
requires is proper planning and efficient implementation. We, 
therefore, direct the Government of the Punjab to ensure that every 
possible effort is made to create and maintain such balance. Further, 
we direct that in future if any project of this nature is to be 
undertaken, the Project must be widely publicized through the print 
and electronic media at least six months prior to the proposed date 
of commencement. Public hearings should be held and the citizens 
must 
be 
allowed 
to 
express 
their 
views. 
All 
requisite 
permissions/approvals, licenses and NOCs etc must be obtained 
from the concerned departments/agencies before actual work on the 
Project is commenced so that all those who wish to raise objections 
have adequate time and sufficient information to approach the 
competent fora in case they have genuine objections.    
49. 
 
We have repeatedly asked the learned counsels for the 
Respondents, if they have an alternative workable plan. The only 
suggestions they could come up with involved either realignment of 
the route or constructing the line underground for the portion where 
it passes near the sites in question. This would entail an 
underground portion of about 6.9 kilometers and an astronomical 
increase in the cost of the Project. Both proposals are neither 
financially feasible nor practically workable and would require re-
planning and realignment of the routes and revision of the entire 
mass transit policy for Lahore which envisages a mass transit project 
described above which has taken years of planning, data collection 
and designing. The proposals put forth by the Respondents would 
disrupt and throw into disarray the entire master plan which has 
been prepared by international experts in the field of mass transit 
projects a part of which (Green Line) has already been completed 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
34
 
and is presently operational. No valid reason has been pleaded that 
may persuade us to take such drastic an action. In the facts and 
circumstances of the present case, it was even otherwise beyond 
the jurisdictional domain of the High Court in exercise of its powers 
under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 
1973 to delve into highly technical and purely policy issues which 
were better left to be dealt with by experts having relevant 
knowledge, training and expertise in their respective fields and the 
competent authorities authorized and empowered by law to do so. 
Reference may usefully be made to Dossani Travels Pvt. Ltd. v. 
Travels Shop Pvt. Ltd (PLD 2014 Supreme Court 1). 
50. 
 
We have carefully gone through the reports submitted 
by NESPAK, Dr. Uppal, Dr. Rogers, M/s TYPSA –Asia and Dr. 
Cunningham and noticed that the Respondents have not placed on 
record any authentic technical data / analysis that may reflect 
negatively on or rebut the accuracy of the reports, opinions and the 
conclusions drawn by various experts from the data and information 
made available to them. We are, therefore of the opinion that the 
conditions imposed and mitigating and remedial measures 
suggested by the experts if implemented in letter and spirit would 
adequately 
address 
the 
apprehensions 
expressed 
by 
the 
Respondents. 
We, 
accordingly, 
endorse 
and 
approve 
the 
NOCs/permission letters issued by the competent authorities and the 
recommendations of experts relating to execution, mitigation and 
remedial measures required to be adopted by the executing agency 
and allow the Project to proceed subject to the following conditions 
and directions: - 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
35
 
i) 
The appellant shall make all necessary arrangements 
to ensure that the monuments remain stable and 
undamaged in all respects during the execution of the 
Project as specified in the HIA and Study of Control of 
Vibration, Noise and Foundation; 
ii) 
Vibration monitoring shall be undertaken as a part of 
the monitoring plan using the crack measure devices 
such as Avongard Standard Tell-Tale throughout the 
construction period and for an additional period of 10 
weeks 
from 
the 
date 
of 
commencement 
of 
commercial operation of the train or such further time 
as may be directed by the Director General, 
Archaeology. In case, it is found that vibration levels 
at any stage of the construction or operation are 
exceeding safe limits, construction work / operation 
shall immediately be discontinued and remedial action 
shall be taken to ensure that such levels are brought 
down to acceptable limits. Such actions may inter alia 
include use of one piece of equipment at a time, 
during the construction phase, adjustment of train 
speed, addition of buffers and such other remedial 
and mitigating measures as may be recommended by 
the experts; 
iii) 
Technical experts shall be present at the sites during 
the construction phase in the vicinity of the antiquities 
and special premises with all necessary equipment for 
monitoring vibration levels. In case, vibration levels 
exceed the acceptable limits, work shall immediately 
be stopped, remedial measures taken to the 
satisfaction of experts and further work shall not 
commence unless written clearance for resumption of 
work is given by the experts; 
iv) 
An 
independent and experienced Conservation 
Engineer shall be appointed to monitor the Project, 
both during the construction and operation phases. 
He shall submit monthly reports to the Advisory 
Committee 
which 
shall 
make 
such 
further 
recommendations 
to 
the 
Director 
General, 
Archaeology as may be required to ensure that the 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
36
 
Project as a whole is meeting all technical 
requirements 
meant 
to 
preserve, 
protect 
and 
conserve the antiquities or protected premises; 
v) 
On completion of the project, the train shall be 
operated on experimental basis for at least 2 weeks 
on the entire length of the route and the vibration 
levels shall be monitored to ensure that the same are 
within the acceptable limits. Commercial operation 
shall not commence unless written clearance is given 
by the experts confirming that vibration levels have 
consistently been found to be within acceptable limits;  
vi) 
The speed of the Train shall be reduced while passing 
near the monuments as recommended by the 
Directorate General of Archaeology from time to time 
on the basis of data made available to it; 
vii) 
State of the art vibration measuring equipments shall 
permanently be installed at suitable places in and 
around the antiquities and special premises to monitor 
levels of vibration created by operation of the train. 
Records of the same shall be maintained and 
regularly checked by a responsible officer deputed to 
do so; 
viii) 
Special teams consisting of qualified experts will be 
set up which will periodically inspect all antiquities and 
special 
premises 
to 
detect 
any 
damage 
or 
deterioration at the sites. Proper records and 
logbooks shall be maintained for this purpose; 
ix) 
Any damage or deterioration shall be reported to the 
Director General, Archaeology in writing who shall 
take remedial steps necessary to ensure safety of the 
buildings and structures; 
x) 
Recommendations 
of 
the 
Advisory 
Committee 
(already set up) shall be placed before the Directorate 
General of Archaeology, who shall take necessary 
steps to ensure that the same are complied with in 
letter 
and 
spirit 
by 
all 
concerned 
agencies, 
contractors, sub-contractors and operators; 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
37
 
xi) 
Where excavation is necessary it shall be carried out 
in a way that it would not affect any structure or 
foundation of the antiquities or special premises. 
Where necessary special arrangements shall be 
made to stabilize and strengthen the structure of the 
antiquities and special premises. All necessary safety 
arrangements shall be made in accordance with the 
best 
engineering 
expertise 
during 
excavation, 
construction and execution phases of the Project; 
xii) 
The executing agency shall install accelerometers, 
velocity transducers, noise detectors and vibration 
measuring equipment near the antiquities and special 
premises. The appellant shall ensure implementation 
of additional mitigation and remedial measures as 
mentioned in vibration analysis report by NESPAK, 
Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA) as well as in the 
reports submitted by Dr. Uppal and Dr. Rogers;  
xiii) 
Excavation would be carried out in a way that would 
not affect any of the exposed or buried structure of 
the Special Premises; 
xiv) 
In case of any adverse impact to the antiquities or 
special premises during excavation, construction or 
execution, the appellant and all other related agencies 
shall immediately and forthwith stop and discontinue 
further work, take all possible actions to protect and 
conserve the antiquities and special premises and in 
this regard, involve such experts and consultants as 
may be necessary to ensure that the causes and 
effects of the adverse impact are effectively removed; 
xv) 
A dedicated hotline shall be set up, telephone 
numbers whereof shall be prominently displayed in 
public areas around all antiquities and special 
premises for reporting damage or deterioration 
observed by members of the public or tourists; 
xvi) 
In case, any information/report is received by the 
Director General, Archaeology the same shall be 
investigated within 7 days and after receiving 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
38
 
recommendations (if any) from experts repair/ 
renovation work shall be commenced within 30 days; 
xvii) 
No 
building 
material 
or 
equipment 
shall 
be 
stored/stockpiled 
within 
protected 
area 
of 
the 
monuments; 
xviii) No change shall be made in the alignment of the track 
which brings any part of it nearer to the monuments 
than the distances set out hereinabove; 
xix) 
Dust pollution during construction shall be controlled 
through extensive sprinkling of water on regular basis 
and taking such other steps including but not limited 
to covering the monuments with protective sheets in 
order to avoid any damage from dust; 
xx) 
The design of the viaduct and nearby stations in 
terms of colour and designing shall be in harmony 
with the setting and appearance of the monuments; 
xxi) 
The Hydraulic Tank of Shalamar Garden shall be 
restored, as far as possible, to its original position and 
the surrounding area will be converted into a green 
area; 
xxii) 
Structures on the southern side of the Shalamar 
Garden shall be camouflaged through construction of 
a wall in consultation with the Directorate General of 
Archaeology. All practicable efforts shall be made to 
create a buffer Zone around Shalamar Garden as per 
proposal already pending in the Directorate General 
of Archaeology and other competent forums; 
xxiii) The decorative motifs of Shalamar Garden would be 
replicated on the train station near the Shalamar 
Garden to create harmony with the Garden; 
xxiv) The tile mosaic motifs of the Gulabi Bagh Gateway 
would be replicated on the nearby station of the 
Gateway to create harmony with the historic Gateway; 
xxv) 
The area around the Chauburji Gateway would be 
properly attended and developed into a greenbelt; 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
39
 
xxvi) The decorative motifs of the Chauburji Gateway 
would be replicated on the nearby station of the 
Chauburji Gateway to create a harmony with the 
historic Gateway; 
xxvii) The area around the Zaib-un-Nisa’s Tomb would be 
properly attended and developed; 
xxviii) The decorative motifs of the Zaib-un-Nisa’s Tomb 
would be replicated on the nearby station of the Zaib-
un-Nisa’s Tomb to create harmony with the historic;  
xxix) The Respondents shall in consultation with UNESCO 
and other international agencies prepare phase-wise 
plan to control and monitor urban encroachments and 
the process of creating buffer zone around the 
Shalamar garden; 
xxx) 
All future projects which directly, indirectly and 
incidentally involve antiquities or heritage sites shall in 
the first instance be widely publicized through print 
and electronic media at least 6 months prior to 
proposed date of commencement of the project and 
public hearings shall be conducted to hear objections, 
if any against such project; and 
xxxi) For all future projects, NOCs, licences, approvals and 
permissions as required by law shall be obtained 
before work on the project site is commenced. 
51. 
 In addition to the above, we direct the Government of 
Punjab within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment to 
take the following steps:- 
 
a) Set up an Antiquity and Special Premises Fund with the 
sum of Rupees One Hundred Million which shall be 
dedicated to monitoring, renovation and reconstruction 
work of 11 protected and special premises mentioned 
hereinabove. It shall be a revolving fund and shall be 
replenished on yearly basis. It shall be utilized firstly for 
the 
maintenance, 
preservation, 
restoration 
and 
renovation work of the protected and Special Premises, 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
40
 
subject matter of this lis and thereafter on other 
Antiquities and Special Premises situated in Lahore as 
may be recommended by the special Committee of 
Experts constituted under this Judgment; 
 
b) A broad based Special Committee of Experts consisting 
of Director General, Archeology Department; a Professor 
of the Department of Archeology, University of the 
Punjab; Head of Department of Structural Engineering, 
University of Engineering and Technology, Lahore; a 
Senior Professor nominated by the Chairman of Board of 
Directors of National College of Arts; chaired by a retired 
Judge of this Court nominated by the Chief Justice of 
Pakistan 
shall 
be 
notified 
which 
shall 
oversee 
implementation of the judgment of this Court and the 
directions issued herein. This Committee shall also make 
such further recommendations to the Chief Minister 
Punjab to undertake such measures as may be 
necessary to implement and enforce the directions and 
recommendations made in this judgment. The tenure of 
the Committee shall be one year from the date of its 
notification; 
 
c) The Government of Punjab shall retain the services of at 
least three Experts having expertise in the field of 
archeology 
and 
renovation, 
preservation 
and 
maintenance of antiquities and special premises. One of 
the experts shall be a person having expertise in 
structural engineering. All three experts will work as a 
Technical Committee with tenure of one year. The 
Technical Committee shall report to advise and assist the 
aforesaid Special Committee of Experts. The Committee 
shall, if required and with the approval of Director 
General, Archeology retain services of such other experts 
as it may consider necessary to undertake its work more 
effectively regarding the steps required to be taken to 
monitor the protected and Special Premises all over 
Lahore and suggest remedial measures that may be 
necessary to ensure the safety of all protected and 
special premises in Lahore; and 
 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
41
 
d) We also emphasize the fact that the present condition of 
the protected and special premises calls for major 
preservation, renovation, reconstruction and repair work. 
The Government of Punjab shall take immediate steps 
and we have been assured by learned Advocate 
General, Punjab that such steps shall immediately be 
taken to start repair and renovation work for which the 
requisite funds will be made available within thirty days 
from the date of this judgment.  
52. 
 
In view of the foregoing discussion, the Impugned 
Judgment of the Lahore High Court is set aside and the instant 
appeals are allowed in terms noted above. Civil Petition No.3101-L 
of 2016 is unanimously dismissed and Leave to Appeal is refused. 
53. 
 Before parting with this judgment, we would like to 
record our appreciation for valuable assistance rendered by learned 
counsel for the Appellants namely; Mr. Shahid Hamid, Sr.ASC, Mr. 
Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr.ASC, Kh. Haris Ahmed, Sr.ASC, and Mr. 
Shakeel-ur-Rehman, learned Advocate General, Punjab and Ms. 
Asma Jehangir, Sr.ASC and Kh. Ahmed Hussain, ASC for the 
Respondents alongwith their respective teams. We would also like to 
acknowledge and commend the hard work assistance and backup 
provided by the Law Clerks of members of the Bench.   
Judge 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Judge  
 
 
Judge 
 
Announced in open Court  
On 08.12.2017 at Islamabad. 
 
 
Judge  
  
APPROVED FOR REPORTING  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
42
 
EJAZ AFZAL KHAN,J.-Every thickly populated city like 
Lahore needs a Mass Transit System. The system already in place 
with rapidly growing population has become inadequate. A project 
of this type could have been conceived at least two decades ago. 
But the people at the helm could not appreciate its importance. 
They realized to pay heed to it when the water was to go above 
their heads. It is never too late to mend is an adage which could 
console even the late starter. Since the things do not remain static 
and stationary, the problems the late starters face become greater 
in magnitude. They, thus, have to mend fences according to the 
situation which has changed a great deal. Had this project been 
launched twenty years ago it would not have harmed anything of 
significance because there was sufficient space all around. Take for 
instance the ShalimarGarden. In the seventies of the twentieth 
century it was the sole monument in the area having nothing 
around it. But today it is surrounded by buildings on almost all the 
sides. Whatever setup we may have today and whatever odds we 
may come across, the project of the Orange Line Metro Train 
(OLMT) which is a dire need of the people living in Lahorehas to be 
launched and completed.The main issue we are confronted with is 
the preservation of the heritage sites (Antiquities and Special 
Premises). If the establishment of the Mass Transit System is 
indispensable so is the preservation of the heritage sites. What perils 
does this project purportedly bring to the heritage sites could be 
summed up as under: 
1) Visual impairment of the sites and 
2) Damage to the building structure of the heritage sites by 
vibration during the phase of construction and that of 
operation. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
43
 
Before examining the aforesaid aspects, we have to consider the 
present state and surrounding of each of the heritage sites.  
2. 
 
The first heritage site in the sequence is Shalimar 
Garden. It is surrounded by densely constructed houses on three 
and a dualcarriageway, on the fourth side, which is frequented by 
heavy vehicular traffic. The proposed railway track is being 
constructed in the mid of the said dual carriageway. The proposed 
construction does not cause any visual impairment of the site 
because the Garden is walled on all the fours. A pedestrian walking 
on one or another side of the road cannot see anything inside the 
Garden. Vibration caused  by the operation of the train does not 
pose any threat to the Garden when there is a considerable 
distance between the walls of the Garden and the railway track. 
Hydraulic tank is also a part of the heritage site.But it is not likely to 
be damaged by the proposed construction of the railway track as 
none of the piers for the track has been raised in the area where 
the tank lies. 
3. 
 
The next heritage site is Gulabi Bagh’s Gateway. Its left, 
right and back are covered by double-story buildings, whereas, 
front is flanked by a dual carriageway. Railway track is being 
constructed in the middle of the road which has least impact on 
the site. If the buildings on its left, right and back have done little to 
damage it, the railway track too would do little to damage its 
viability. Vibration caused by the train could be said to pose a 
threat to the heritage site but when the one caused by the 
vehicular traffic despite being of much greater magnitude has not 
posed any, there is absolutely no occasion for being paranoid 
about the vibration caused by the train. There are cracks in the 
dome and the crown of the arches but in any case the structure 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
44
 
has not reached an edge where it could be declared dangerous 
as per report of Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers. Even if it be so, the 
benchmark could not be the fast dilapidating state of the building 
but the one which isrestored on its being repaired and revamped. 
In case it is left in the present state, tomorrow even a violent gust of 
wind could cause its collapse. Measures to protect the site have to 
be taken in any case. The proposed railway track, in this context, is 
not a threat to the existence of the site. NESPAK and TYPSA, too, do 
not see any threat to the site on account of the construction of the 
track and operation of the train. Safeguards provided by law and 
highlighted in the report of Professor Coninghamhave also been 
taken care of in the NOC issued by the Director-General of 
Archaeology, Government of Punjab. Visual impairment is the only 
problem to be attended to but the fact is that the space left at the 
moment across the site does not cause any visual impairment as 
the pedestrians walking on one or another side of the road could 
well see the façade of the garden. In this situation, we cannot 
pursue the ideal or what ought to have been. We have to preserve 
whatever can possibly be preserved. We, thus, do not see anything 
as could hinder or hamper a ‘go-ahead’ signal to the proposed 
construction of the railway track as far as this site is concerned.  
4. 
 
Buddhu’s tomb is another impediment so-called in the 
construction of the railway track. It is also situated alongside the 
dualcarriageway. The part of the railway track near the site is 
resting on fourpiers raised on the strip in between the dual 
carriageway. Vibration caused by the operation of the train cannot 
affect much less adversely the fabric of the site and structure of 
what is built therein. This is not an opinion based on guesswork. This is 
an opinion based on deduction. The basis for that said deduction is 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
45
 
that the vibration caused by the heavy vehicular traffic which, thus 
far, did not cause even a crack in any part of the structure on the 
site. What is strange and even surprising is that disaster on account 
of vibration caused to the site by the operation of train has been 
visualized without comparing the vibration caused by the vehicular 
traffic which appears to be of much greater magnitude. The 
proposed and partially completed Mass Transit System cannot be 
obstructed on the basis of assumptions which have no concrete 
foundations. The piers already raised in between the dual 
carriageway do not obstruct the vision of pedestrians walking on 
either side of the road.  
5. 
 
Having said so, we now pass on to LakshamiBuilding. 
This building has been demolished but its façade still stands in its 
original position and this is what is sought to be protected and 
preserved. Construction of the railway track does not meddle, nor 
does it compromise the sanctity of its façade for two reasons: the 
first is that a road intervenes in between the building and the 
railway track, the second is the heavy vehicular traffic plied on the 
road whose vibration by no scale of measurement is less than that 
of the train. Even visual impairment does not appear to be a 
problem as the pedestrians on one or another side of the road 
could see the façade of the building. A look at the photographs of 
the building and its surroundings shows that piers have been 
partially constructed without causing any damage to the façade. 
Even otherwise the proposed railway track does not intervene with 
the building because of the distance between the two. We have 
been just left wondering how the completion of this project is 
opposed on the basis of the apprehension which are conjectural.  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
46
 
6. 
 
We now deal with Chauburji. This site makes a complex 
reading. The proposed railway track encroaches upon its 
courtyardas the piers have been raised therein but when we 
compare the distance between the heritage site and the road and 
the distance between the piers and the site, the latter appears to 
be far greater than the former. But in any case, the proposed 
railway track causes less intrusion and less visual impairment to the 
site as compared to the road and vehicular traffic. Known or 
conventionally recognized standards of protecting the monuments 
cannot be adhered to without realigning the road and the track. If 
the road could stay where it stands so could continue the proposed 
construction of the track as it too does not cause any harm to the 
site.Vibration caused by the train will not cause any damage to the 
site when vibration caused by the vehicular traffic did not cause 
any so far. Protection of the site in terms of ideal against this 
backdrop is just unworkable. We, thus, have to accept it as it is. 
7. 
 
Zaib-un-Nisa’s tomb is another heritage site whose 
existence is alleged to be jeopardized by the proposed 
construction of the railway track, notwithstanding it is far off the 
road and has all along been surrounded by double story buildings 
on all the sides. How the proposed construction of the railway track 
could cause visual impairment and how the vibration of the train 
could cause any damage thereto, are the queries begging 
answers. It is, therefore, nothing but creating a storm in a tea cup. 
Even otherwise, if the heavy construction aroundthe heritage site 
and the vehicular traffic plied on the dualcarriageway could not 
cause a hairline crack, apprehending any threat to the site from the 
proposed construction of the railway track and the operation of the 
train would be just chimerical. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
47
 
8. 
 
Now we are to see whether the proposed railway track 
impinges on the health and existence of the heritage sitesinspite of 
the fact that the track is going underground which in the technical 
parlance is called cut and cover. The study which has been 
undertaken by the experts in this connection led to certain 
reservations. These reservations when considered carefully do not 
appear to be of a nature as could justify change of site but 
observance of certain measures which ensure their protection 
against an imagined or actual danger arising out of the operation 
of the train. It may, however, be noted that many of the measures 
already taken adequatelycater for the reservations. It is,thus, not 
the end of the chapter which would end with the construction of 
the track and operation of the train. Any measure which is ancillary 
and reasonably incidental could still be taken at any time if and 
when anything endangering the heritage sites appears or emerges. 
Much hue and cry has been raised about the vibration caused by 
the operation of the train and its effect on the heritage sites. We 
have again been left wondering as to how vibration caused by the 
OLMT could damage the wellengineered and well architectured 
structure of the sites when much greater vibration caused by 
heavier trains of Pakistan Western Railway did not cause even a 
crack in the walls of the guard rooms constructed alongside the 
barriers of the railway tracks more than hundred years ago. 
9. 
 
How do the experts look at the railway track and its 
impact on the heritage sites in terms of vibration and visual 
impairment? A careful perusal of their opinions would reveal that 
each of them has his own angle of vision. Yet their opinions are not 
antithetical to each other. They do not see anything in the railway 
track as could impinge on the health and existence of the heritage 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
48
 
sites in any form. Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers’ expert opinion would 
support the conclusion when she says that the vibration produced 
during the construction and operational phase for all sites and sides 
will be within the permitted limits. She sees an enemy of the sites in 
dust which could be raised during the phase of construction but it 
cannot be blown out of proportion when much greater dust is 
raised by the heavy vehicular traffic plied on the dualcarriageway 
which runs across the sites. She nevertheless suggested ways and 
means for the treatment of the problem emerging from the 
construction of the railway track and operation of the train which 
could well be taken care of. At times her eyes are more focused on 
the surrounding than the heritage site as if the site is an angle and 
not an object of vision. But it too can be attended to, by 
beautifying the surroundings which have been impaired by the 
unplanned massive construction. Beautification of the surroundings 
at any rate, is a yearning which at no stage becomes unmeaning. 
According to NESPAK the vibration will have least impact on the 
sites. TYPSA appears to be in agreement with NESPAK. Report of 
Professor Coningham focuses more on the imagined violation of 
law than the damage to be caused to the heritage sites. His 
expertise in the field does not enlighten us much on the technical 
aspects of the proposed construction. Report given by Dr.Javed 
Uppal expressed satisfaction with the measures already taken and 
to be taken to ensure foolproof protection of the heritage sites 
against noise and vibration. His report does not suggest the change 
of site for the construction of the railway trackbut it has not been 
given much weight by the High Court. The reason in this behalf is 
not any lapse in his expertise but his supposed bias on account of a 
position he held in the government of Punjab a few years ago. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
49
 
10. 
 
Let us see how and where does the construction of the 
railway track make inroads in the domain of the law protecting the 
heritage sites and how and where do the NOCs violate its letter and 
spirit? Before we answer these questions, we would like to go 
through the relevant provisions of Section 22 of the Antiquities Act 
1975: 
“22.  Execution of development schemes and new 
constructions in proximity to immovable antiquity.–
 Notwithstanding anything contained in any other 
law for the time being in force, no development plan 
or scheme or new construction on, or within a 
distance of two hundred feet of, a protected 
immovable 
antiquity 
shall 
be 
undertaken 
or 
executed except with the approval of the Director 
General.” 
What does Section 11 of The Punjab Special Premises 
Ordinance 1985 envisage in this behalf can well be seen 
from the words reproduced as under: 
“11.  Execution of development schemes and new 
constructions in proximity to Special Premises.— No 
development plan or scheme or new construction 
on, or within a distance of two hundred feet of a 
Special Premises shall be undertaken or executed 
except with the approval of the Government or a 
Committee.” 
11. 
 
The provisions reproduced above show that the 
legislature provided adequate safeguards for the protection of the 
heritage sites in terms of distance between the sites and the 
constructions proposed to be raised in their proximity. In case the 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
50
 
distance provided by the law cannot be adhered to because of 
the irreversible developments taking place in the meantime,what 
could be the way out to kill the snake and yet save the stick. The 
answer provided by the law is an NOC issued by the DG 
Archaeology in respect of Antiquities and an NOC by the Special 
Committee constituted under the Ordinance in respect of Special 
Premises.But in no case it could be accepted asa gospel truth. It 
could be changed, modified or revised if the NOC issued for the 
proposed construction violates the sanctity of the site. It is not 
injusticiable. The High Court and for that matter this Court could 
issue an appropriate order, writ or direction if the NOC for the 
proposed construction has been issued without safeguarding the 
sanctity and integrity of the sites. Let us see how do the NOCs issued 
by the competent authority in this behalf deal with the risk to the 
Antiquities. NOCs on being read provide the following measures 
which are common in all: 
“A) No building material or equipment shall be 
stored/stocked within the protected area of the 
monuments. 
B) No change shall be made in the alignment of the 
track which brings any part of it nearer to the 
monuments than the distances set out in the Report 
of the Advisory Committee.  
C) Dust pollution during construction shall be 
controlled through extensive sprinkling of water on 
regular basis.  
D) Such further special arrangements shall be made, 
as necessary, to keep the monument stable and un-
damaged in all respects during the execution of the 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
51
 
project as specified in HIA and Study of Control of 
Vibrations, Noise and Foundation. 
E) The design of the viaduct and nearby station in 
terms of colour and reflectivity should be in harmony 
with the setting and appearance of the monuments.  
F) Vibration monitoring must be undertaken as part 
of a Monitoring Plan using the crack measures 
devices 
such 
as 
Avogard 
Standard 
tell-tales 
throughout construction period of and for a period 
of 
10 
weeks 
after 
commencement 
of 
train 
operations and more time period if so directed. If 
levels of vibrations exceed safe limits further action 
must be taken to bring such levels down such as 
adjustment of train speed, additional buffer, etc., 
Visual Inspection of indicators other than cracks shall 
also be part of the Monitoring Plans.  
G) An independent and experienced Conservation 
Engineer must be engaged by the executing 
agency, and later by the operating agency, to 
monitor the Project both during its construction and 
operational phases who shall submit monthly reports 
to the Advisory Committee which shall in turn make 
such further recommendations as may be required 
to the Directorate- General Archaeology. This 
monitoring shall be in addition to monitoring by the 
technical 
staff 
of 
the 
Directorate- 
General 
Archaeology.  
H) The speed of the train shall be reduced while 
passing in front of monuments as recommended by 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
52
 
the Directorate General of Archaeology from time to 
time on the basis of the available data.  
I) Recommendations of the Advisory Committee shall 
be complied by all the involved agencies in letter 
and spirit.” 
Some of the measures are site specific which read as under: 
A) The area around the Hydraulic tank would be properly 
attended and developed into green belt. 
B) Shabby structures on the southern side of the 
Shalamar Garden would be camouflaged through 
construction of a wall in consultation of Directorate 
General of Archaeology. 
C) The decorative motifs of the Shalamar Garden would 
be replicated on the nearby station of the Garden to 
create a harmony with the historic Garden.  
D) The tile mosaic motifs of the Gulabi Bagh Gateway 
would be replicated on the nearby station of the 
Gateway to create harmony with the historic 
Gateway.  
E) The area around the Chuburji Gateway would be 
properly attended and developed into a green belt.  
F) The decorative motifs of the Chuburji Gateway would 
be replicated on the nearby station of the Chuburji 
Gateway to create a harmony with the historic 
Gateway.  
G) The area around the Zaib-Un-Nisa’s Tomb would be 
properly attended and developed. 
H) The decorative motifs of the Zaib-Un Nisa’s Tomb 
would be replicated on the nearby station of the Zaib-
Un Nisa’s Tomb to create harmony with the historic 
Tomb. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
53
 
NOC issued by the competent authority for Special Premises 
contained the following conditions: 
a. Excavation would be carried out in a way that it 
would not affect any of the exposed or buried 
structure of the Special Premises.  
b. Wherever necessary special arrangement would be 
made to stabilize and strengthen the standing 
structures of the Special Premises.  
c. Area of the Special Premises would not be used for 
storing material or parking construction machinery 
and 
safety 
arrangements 
shall 
be 
made 
in 
accordance with the best engineering practice 
during excavation, construction and execution phases 
of the project.  
d. If any damage occurred to Special Premises the 
executing agency will conserve that part from its 
resources in consultation with the Directorate General 
Archaeology. 
e. An independent and experienced Conservative 
Engineer shall be engaged by Lahore Development 
Authority/ Punjab MasstransitAuthority, to monitor the 
Project during excavation, construction and execution 
phases who shall submit regular reports to the 
Directorate-General Archaeology which shall be 
presented to the Committee which may make further 
recommendations as may be required. This monitoring 
shall be in addition to monitoring by the technical staff 
of the Directorate-General Archeology.  
f. Excavation would be carried out in a way that it 
would not affect any exposed or buried structure of 
the Special Premises. Wherever necessary special 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
54
 
arrangement would be made to stabilize and 
strengthen the standing structures of the Special 
Premises.  
g. The executing agency shall install accelerometers, 
velocity transducers and noise detectors nearby the 
Special Premises.  
h. The 
executing 
agency 
shall 
ensure 
the 
implementation of the additional mitigation measures 
as mentioned in vibration analysis Reports of NESPAK 
and Heritage Impact Assessment. 
i. 
In case of any adverse impact to the Special Premises 
during excavation, construction and execution phases 
of the Project, the executing agency will take all 
possible actions to conserve that part from its 
resources in consultation and as per advice of the 
Directorate General of Archaeology.  
j. 
In case of any violation of the above-mentioned 
conditions during the excavation, construction or 
execution phase of the Project this Permission/NOC will 
be treated as withdrawn and the executing agency 
(LDA) and any other involved agencies shall be dealt 
with in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab 
Special Premises (Preservation) Ordinance, 1985. 
These NOCs cannot be looked askance at when the conditions 
provided therein are effective and adequate. Rigid adherence to 
the distance provided by law in view of the roads and buildings 
already constructed has become practically impossible. It, 
therefore, cannot be over emphasized in the present state of things 
unless of course the entire mass of roads and buildings is razed and 
erased. If that is not possible, we have to live with it and go ahead 
without getting bogged down into a controversy which may 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
55
 
distract the executors of the project from the completion of the 
Mass Transit System which is launched for the welfare of the people.    
12. 
 
The main thrust of the arguments of the learned ASCs 
for the appellants was that the final NOCs issued by the authorities 
conform to the opinions of the experts viz-a-viz the measures to be 
taken during the phase of construction and that of operation which 
are by all means effective and adequate and fully cater for the 
apprehensions of the respondents. We endorse the views of the 
experts because they also conform to the grave ground realities 
emanating from our surrounding. We could not, thus, prefer the 
unknown to known and theoretical to practical.  
13. 
 
The learned ASCs for the respondents addressed 
lengthy arguments but they are based more on their apprehension 
than rational and realistic understanding of the controversy. They 
stridently criticized the opinions of the experts without precisely 
pointing out any infirmity or imperfection therein. They, however, 
extolled to the skies the report of Professor Coningham without 
realizing that it focused, more on legal than the technical aspects 
of the construction of the railway track. They could not give 
relevant facts and figures either on technical or factual plain. They 
see heal-all in the arrival of the experts from UNESCO as Zoroastrians 
see heal-all in reappearance of Zoroastor. We should not, however, 
forget that we have our own problems. We can understand them 
better by studying them in the context of our surroundings and solve 
them accordingly by applying our minds. What in the prevailing 
state of things would be sane, sound and sensible could be 
decided by the local experts who know the ins and outs of the 
project and its impact on the sites. The measures and conditions 
suggested in the NOCs in view of the reports of the experts reflect 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
56
 
the understanding of the problems and their solution according to 
our surroundings.   
14. 
 
We, therefore, allow these appeals, set aside the 
impugned judgments and direct the appellants to go ahead with 
the project by rigidly adhering to the measures suggested by the 
experts for the protection and preservation of the heritage sites.   
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
57
 
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
 
 
 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
PRESENT: 
MR. JUSTICE EJAZ AFZAL KHAN 
MR. JUSTICE SH. AZMAT SAEED 
MR. JUSTICE MAQBOOL BAQAR 
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE MAZHAR ALAM KHAN 
MIANKHEL 
 
C.M.A. NOS.8215 AND 6171 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPEAL 
NO.2144 OF 2016, C.M.A. NO. 6225 OF 2016 AND CIVIL 
APPEAL NO.2145 OF 2016, C.M.A. NO.6226 OF 2016 AND 
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2146 OF 2016, C.M.A. NO.6291 OF 2016 
AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.2147 OF 2016  
(Against the judgment dated 19.8.2016 of the Lahore High Court, 
Lahore passed in WP No.39291/2015 
 
C.M.A. NOS.8215 & 6171 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.2144 OF 
2016  
National Engineering Services Pakistan [NESPAK] (Pvt.) Limited 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
Applicant(s)/Appellant(s) 
 
 
Versus 
Kamil Khan Mumtaz and others 
 
       
Respondent(s) 
 
C.M.A. NO. 6225 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.2145 OF 2016  
Punjab Mass transit Authority through its Managing Director, Lahore 
 
 
 
 
 
     
 
Applicant(s)/Appellant(s) 
Versus 
Kamil Khan Mumtaz and others 
 
       
Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
C.M.A. NO.6226 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.2146 OF 2016  
Lahore Development Authority through its D. G. and another 
 
 
 
 
 
      
 
Applicant(s)/Appellant(s) 
Versus 
Kamil Khan Mumtaz and others 
 
       
Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
AND 
 
C.M.A. NO.6291 OF 2016 AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.2147 OF 2016  
Province of Punjab through Chief Secretary, Lahore and others 
 
 
 
 
 
       
 
Applicant(s)/Appellant(s) 
Versus 
 
Kamil Khan Mumtaz and others 
 
       
Respondent(s) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
… 
 
For the Applicant/Appellant(s): 
Mr. Shahid Hamid, Sr. ASC  
 
Mr. Mahmood A. Sheikh, AOR  
assisted by Rabia Hassan, Advocate 
              
Mr. Salman Hafeez, G.M. NESPAK 
 
(in CA.2144/2016) 
Mr. Makhdoom Ali Khan, Sr. ASC with 
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR  
Assisted by Mr. Saad Hashmi, Advocate 
Mr. Sarmad Hani, Advocate 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
58
 
 
Mr. Sabtain Fazal Haleem, M.D. PMA 
(in CA.2145/2016) 
 
Kh. Haris Ahmed, Sr. ASC  
Mr. Mustafa Ramday, ASC  
Mr. Tariq Aziz, AOR 
Assisted by Mr. Zaafir Khan, Advocate 
Mr. Ahmed Jamal, Advocate 
Israr Saeed, Chief Engineer, LDA 
 
Muhammad Rashid, Dir. (Law), LDA 
Muhammad Hassan, Dy. Dir (Engineering), 
LDA  
Hafiz Nisar Hussain, A. Dir (Law), LDA 
(in CA.2146/2016) 
 
Mr. Shakeel-ur-Rehman, AG Punjab 
Ms. Asma Hamid, Addl. AG Punjab 
Barrister Qasim Ali Chohan, Asstt. A.G. 
Pb. 
Rao M. Yousaf Khan, AOR (Absent)  
Mr. 
Khurram 
Chughtai, 
Strategic 
Counsel 
(in CA 2147/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the Respondent(s): 
 
Ms. Asma Jehangir, Sr. ASC, a/w 
 
 
 
 
Ch. Akhtar Ali, AOR  
Mr. Kamil Khan Mumtaz 
 
 
 
 
Assisted by Mr. Noor Ejaz Chauhdry, 
Advocate 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Hamid Azim Leghari, Advocate 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Namra Gillani. Advocate 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Ayesha Alam Malik, Advocate 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Suleman Jahangir, Advocate 
 
 
 
 
(For respondent No. 1 in CAs 2144 to 2147/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
Kh. Ahmad Hussain, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Ozair Chughtai, AOR (Absent) 
 
 
 
 
(For respondents No.2 in CAs 2144 to 2147/2016) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Azhar Siddique, ASC 
 
 
 
 
Mr. M. Ozair Chughtai, AOR (Absent) 
Assisted 
by 
Mr. 
Abdullah 
Malik, 
Advocate 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Hammyun Faiz Rasool, Advocate 
 
 
 
 
Mian Shabbir Ismail, Advocate 
 
 
 
 
Mr. 
Muhammad 
Irfan 
Mukhtar, 
Advocate 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Parveen Moghal, Advocate 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Hifsa Mafia, Advocate 
 
 
 
 
(For respondent No. 3 in CA 2144/2016) 
 
 
 
 
(For respondents No. 3-5 in CAs 2145, 2146 & 2147/16) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Mr. Shakeel ur Rehman, AG Punjab 
 
 
 
 
Ms. Asma Hamid, Addl. AG Punjab 
 
 
 
 
Barrister 
Qasim 
Ali 
Chouhan, 
AAG 
Punjab 
 
 
 
 
(For Govt. of Punjab) 
 
 
 
 
 
Syed Rifaqat Hussain Shah, AOR 
 
 
 
 
(For respondent No. 17 in CAs 2144 & 2146/16) 
 
 
 
 
(For respondent No. 19 in CA 2145/16) 
 
 
 
 
(For respondent No. 16 in CA 214716) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dates of Hearing: 
 
 
3rd to 6th, 10th to 14th & 17th April, 2017  
 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
59
 
-,-,-.-.-.-.-.-.
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
60
 
JUDGMENT 
 
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J. Brought in question through 
the above appeals is the judgment dated 19th August 2016, 
whereby a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, whilst 
partially allowing the petitions filed by the respondents No. 1 to 3, 
declared that the No Objection Certificates (‘NOCs’) issued by the 
Director General, Archaeology, Punjab and the Chief Secretaries’ 
Committee, for the construction of Lahore Orange Line Metro Train 
(‘OLMT’) Project, was without lawful authority, and of no legal 
effect, and directed the Director General, Archaeology to engage 
an independent panel of consultants/ experts of international 
stature, preferably in consultation with UNESCO, to carry out an 
independent study regarding the protected immovable antiquities 
and special premises situated along the alignment of the OLMT 
track. The Court also directed that the request for permission sought 
under section 22 of the Antiquities Act, 1975 (‘the 1975 Act’), and 
under section 11 of the Punjab Special Premises (Preservation) 
Ordinance, 
1985 
(“the 
1985 
Ordinance”), 
respectively, 
be 
considered by the competent authorities in the light of the study 
and report of the said experts, afresh. The Court also directed the 
Government to frame rules under section 22 of the 1975 Act, and 
under section 11 of the 1985 Ordinance. 
2. 
 
Through their petitions, the respondents No. 1 to 3 have 
challenged before the High Court the aforesaid NOCs, as being 
violative of section 22 of the 1975 Act, and section 11 of the 1985 
Ordinance, respectively. It was contended that the construction of 
the OLMT Project that will run along five heritage buildings, and five 
special premises (the monuments), will cause severe damage to the 
structure of the said monuments, harm their integrity and shall also 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
61
 
cause their visual impairment. It was submitted that the project is 
being constructed within the protective/buffer zone of two hundred 
feet (200 ft.), prescribed by the 1975 Act, and the 1985 Ordinance 
respectively, and in dangerously close proximity to the said 
monuments.  It was submitted that the vibrations induced during 
the construction activity by use of various equipments/ machinery, 
and by the transit of the project train, in such close proximity would 
cause severe and irreversible damage to the said monuments, 
some of which are more than 370 years of age. It was submitted 
that as per the internationally recognized standards and scientific 
data, and literature, the amplitude of the vibrations induced and 
suffered 
as 
aforesaid 
shall 
be 
far 
in 
excess 
of 
the 
threshold/tolerance level which shall certainly cause irreversible 
harm and damage to the monuments. It was claimed that the 
viaduct structure of the project being constructed in close proximity 
to the monuments would certainly impair their visual integrity and 
would break the view line, between the viewers and the 
monuments. It was further submitted that one of the heritage 
premises, being the Shalimar Gardens, because of its Outstanding 
Universal Value (‘OUV’) has been inscribed on the World Heritage 
List maintained by UNESCO. However because of the impugned 
construction and the resultant harm envisaged on account thereof 
in the shape of physical damage, and visual impairment, the 
relevant 
Committees 
of 
UNESCO, 
not 
only 
requested 
the 
Government to change the alignment of the OLMT project, but also 
to suspend the construction of the project along with the alignment 
of the Shalimar Gardens, and close to its hydraulic tank which is a 
core element of the Garden. However subsequently on account of 
certain assurances given by the Government of the Punjab, they 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
62
 
agreed not to press for the suspension of the work, but insisted upon 
the change of alignment/route as requested earlier with a caution 
that non-compliance may result in removing the monument from 
the World Heritage List. It was submitted that the above monuments 
are the heart and soul of the city of Lahore and carry with them our 
glorious past which we are obliged to protect and preserve, and to 
hand over them in a safe and sound condition to the next 
generation. 
3. 
 
It may be relevant to note here that the original 
feasibility study in relation to the OLMT project was undertaken by a 
consulting firm, namely, MVA Asia, for a 27.1 km track (20.2 km 
elevated and 6.9 km underground), including 26 stations (20 
elevated and 6 underground) at a total cost of US$ 2.00 billion 
exclusive of land acquisition. An addendum to the study was 
completed by NESPAK, one of the appellants before us, in the year 
2014, in which the length of the track remained 27.1 km and 
aligned over or under the median of the road as envisaged by MVA 
Asia. However, as claimed by the appellants, in order to minimize 
the land to be acquired for the track, the underground portion was 
reduced to 1.7 km and the cost was thus reduced to US$ 1.6 billion. 
It was decided that 1.72 kms of the total 27.1 km length of the route 
would be cut and cover (underground) and the remaining 25.4 km 
would be an elevated viaduct. 
4. 
 
The viaduct of the OLMT project consists of U-shaped 
girders (two separate channel shaped track way in pre-stressed 
concrete) resting upon the piers which are generally 30m apart. The 
viaduct system is supported on piles and a pile cap substructure 
system. The 1.85m thick pile cap consists of 6 piles of 1.2m diameter 
and 18m length. Piers of viaduct are generally of 2300mm (1.2 m) 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
63
 
diameters. The height of piers is generally 13.5 m. A 10m long 
transom (double cantilevered reinforced concrete arms) rests over 
the top of piers to support the U shaped girders.  
5. 
 
In the 1.7 km cut and cover (underground) section, 
construction methodology is to erect barricades on either side of 
the road, about 12 meter apart, drill holes of a dia of 0.76 meters in 
straight lines on either side of the road, lower iron cages into the 
holes and concrete the same, excavate the area in between to a 
depth of 3 meters, construct a 0.8 meter thick reinforced concrete 
roof joining the concreted piles on either side, then excavate the 
earth under the tunnel formed by the roof and the piles on either 
side with a clear height of 5.60 meters, place a concrete slab 0.6 
meters on the floor of the tunnel, and wall the gaps (0.30 to 0.45 
meters wide) in between the concrete piles with water proofing 
materials and vibration dampening materials. 
6. 
 
The 
viaduct 
bridge 
and 
the 
cut 
and 
cover 
subway/tunnel shall carry BI type trains (according to Chinese 
standard), consisting of 5 vehicles. The axel load of type BI train is 
140 kN, and the axel load of empty vehicle is 80 kN. 
7. 
 
The Project has a total of 26 stations, 24 of which are 
elevated and two are underground. The proximate rider ship would 
be 2,45,000/- per day. The operation time of the trains would be 
from 5:30 a.m. to 11:30 p.m. (18 hours daily). The total estimated 
cost of the Project as approved on 13.05.2015 is US$1.629 billion, 
equal to Rs. 165.226 billion, out of which the cost of civil works is 
Rs.54.421 billion. According to the appellants civil work worth 46% of 
the total estimated cost thereof, amounting to Rs. 27.999 billion, has 
been completed up to 30th August, 2016.  
8. 
 
The Project passes along the following monuments: 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
64
 
Antiquities: 
(i) 
Shalimar Garden (World Heritage Site)-95 
feet away from the train tracks 
(ii) 
Gulabi Bagh Gateway-69 feet away from 
the train tracks 
(iii) 
Buddu’s Tomb-59 feet away from the train 
tracks 
(iv) 
Chauburji-53 feet away from the train 
tracks 
(v) 
Zebunnisa’s Tomb-110 feet away 
Special Premises: 
(i) 
Lakshmi Building-34 feet away from the 
train tracks 
(ii) 
General Post Office (GPO)-42.3 feet away 
from the train tracks 
(iii) 
Aiwan-e-Auqaf (Shah Chiragh) Building-66 
feet away from the train tracks 
(iv) 
Supreme Court Building-58.1 feet away 
from the train tracks 
(v) 
Mauj Darya Darbar & Mosque-15.8 feet 
away from the train tracks 
 
9. 
 
On 16.11.2015, the Director General Archaeology 
issued no objection certificate for construction of the OLMT project 
along the alignment of five (5) heritage buildings protected under 
the Act of 1975. Similar NOC was issued on 30.11.2015, in respect of 
the special premises protected under the 1985 Ordinance. By order 
dated 28.1.2016, passed in the respondents’ petition, a learned 
Division Bench of the Lahore High Court suspended the said two 
NOCs, and restrained the present appellants form carrying on any 
construction work within two hundred feet (200 ft.) of the said 
monuments. According to the appellants, it was on 15.2.2016, that 
the “advisor committee” under the chairmanship of the DG 
Archaeology, decided to request LDA to engage an independent 
structural engineer to evaluate the effect of the OLMT project on 
the monuments during construction and operational phases. The 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
65
 
committee also decided to engage Dr. Ayesha Pamela Rogers to 
conduct a Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), of the project.    In 
pursuance of the above, on 24.2.2016, Dr. Engineer Javed Uppal 
submitted his vibration assessment report, whereas Dr. Ayesha 
Pamela Rogers submitted her report on 05.3.2016. M/s NESPAK, who 
has submitted a vibration analysis report in respect of the 
viaduct/elevated section of the project earlier, submitted their such 
report in respect of the cut & cover/subway section, in February 
2016. By order dated 14.10.2016, this Court was pleased to appoint 
M/s TYPSA Asia Consultant Engineering and Professor Cunningham, 
whose names were separately suggested by the appellants and 
respondents respectively, as technical experts for verification of  the 
credibility of the two NESPAK reports. Cunningham report was 
submitted before this Court on 13.11.2016, and the TYPSA report was 
so submitted on 19.11.2016.  
10. 
 
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the relevant record, including the various reports submitted 
in the matter from time to time, thoroughly.  
11. 
 
As succinctly put by Mr. Kamil Khan Mumtaz, the effect 
of vibrations on the monuments depends on: 
 Magnitude of Vibration produced by a 
particular action 
 Distance between vibration source and 
the vibration receiver 
 The condition of the monument 
 Nature of mediums through which it travels 
to receiver (soil, concrete etc.)   
12. 
 
National Cooperative Highway Research Program 
(2012), as quoted by Dr. Pamela Rogers, states that “Operation of 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
66
 
heavy construction equipment, particularly pile drivers, and other 
impact devices such as pavement breakers, creates seismic waves 
that radiate along the surface of the earth and downward into the 
earth. These surface waves can be felt as ground vibration. 
Vibration from operation of this equipment can result in damage to 
buildings including cracks, tilting and subsidence. As seismic waves 
travel outward from a vibration source, they excite the particles of 
rock and soil through which the waves pass and cause the particles 
to oscillate. 
13. 
 
The term “threshold damage vibration level” is defined 
as the highest vibration level at which no cosmetic, minor, or major 
damage occurs. The manner in which a particular building will 
respond dynamically to strong ground vibration depends on many 
factors, among which are the soil on which the building is founded, 
the building’s foundation (e.g., spread footing, piles), the building’s 
mass and the stiffness of the building’s main structural elements. The 
condition of a building and its maintenance are important factors 
when assessing susceptibility to vibration damage and must be 
taken into account when setting vibration limits.  
14. 
 
The study of the vibration induced by a train transit in a 
building located along the line requires solution of the following 
three sub-problems: 
 source problem, i.e. the definition of the 
physical 
mechanism 
responsible 
for 
the 
generation of vibrations induced by the transit 
of trains, and the evaluation of the vibration 
level at a short distance from the track; 
 propagation 
problem, 
i.e. 
the 
study 
of 
propagation of vibration from the source to 
the building; 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
67
 
 structural 
response, 
evaluation 
of 
the 
modification to the vibration signal induced 
by the building components (i.e. foundations, 
load bearing structure, including infill walls, 
and floor plates). 
15. 
 
The physical parameters of the transit facility, the 
geology, and the receiving building all influence the vibration 
levels. The important physical parameters can be divided into 
following four categories: 
 Operational 
and 
Vehicle 
Factors: 
This 
category includes all the parameters that 
relate to the vehicle and operation of the 
trains. Factors such as high speed, stiff primary 
suspensions on the vehicle, and flat or worn 
wheels will increase the possibility of problems 
from ground-borne vibration. 
 The 
ideal 
rail 
vehicle, 
with 
respect 
to 
minimizing ground-borne vibration, should 
have a low unsprung weight, a soft primary 
suspension, a minimum of metal-to-metal 
contact between moving parts of the truck, 
and smooth wheels that are perfectly round. 
A limit for the vertical resonance frequency of 
the primary suspension should be included in 
the specifications for any new vehicle.  
 Geology: Soil and subsurface conditions are 
known to have a strong influence on the 
levels of ground-borne vibration. Among the 
most important factors are the stiffness and 
internal damping of the soil and the depth to 
bedrock. 
Experience 
with 
ground-borne 
vibration is such that vibration propagation is 
more efficient in stiff clay soils, than in loose 
sandy soil, and shallow rock seems to 
concentrate the vibration energy close to the 
surface and can result in ground-borne 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
68
 
vibration problems at large distances from the 
track. Subways/Tunnels founded in rock will 
result in lower vibration amplitudes close to 
the subway due to efficient propagation, as 
the vibration level does not attenuate as 
rapidly in rock as it does in soil. Factors such as 
layering of the soil and depth to water table 
can 
have 
significant 
effects 
on 
the 
propagation of ground-borne vibration. Soil 
layering 
will 
have 
a 
substantial, 
but 
unpredictable, effect on the vibration levels 
since each stratum can have significantly 
different 
dynamic 
characteristics. 
The 
presence of the water table may have a 
significant effect on ground-borne vibration, 
but a definite relationship has not been 
established.  
 
Factors Related to Vibration Receiver 
Foundation Type: The general rule-of-thumb is 
that heavier the building foundation, the 
greater the coupling loss as the vibration 
propagates from the ground into the building. 
Building Construction:   Since 
ground-borne 
vibration 
and 
noise 
are 
almost 
always 
evaluated in terms of indoor receivers, the 
propagation of the vibration through the 
building must be considered. Each building 
has 
different 
characteristics 
relative 
to 
structure-borne 
vibration, 
although 
the 
general rule-of-thumb is, the more massive the 
building, the lower the levels of ground-borne 
vibration. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
69
 
Acoustical Absorption: 
The 
amount 
of 
acoustical absorption in the receiver room 
affects the levels of ground-borne noise. 
16. 
 
Indeed, “Historical structures are particularly vulnerable 
to the effects of vibrations generated at an adjacent site. Deferred 
maintenance and past alterations may have produced structural 
weak points that are susceptible to damage. Historic finishes, such 
as plaster walls and ceilings, lack the flexibility to accommodate 
abnormal movement, while shallow foundations (common in 
historic buildings) may lack the rigidity to resist vibration induced 
movement.” (Randl 2001) 
17. 
 
However, we have noted that all analysis and studies 
which purportedly formed the basis for the issuance of the NOCs, in 
question were carried out/undertaken, without certain very relevant 
basic and crucial information and specifications, like there is 
absolutely no technical information/evaluation about the stability, 
strength, endurance level/threshold, or vulnerability/susceptibility of 
the structure of any of the eleven (11) monuments in relation to the 
OLMT project, out of which monuments five (5), being protected 
antiquities under section 10 of the 1975 Act, are by definition, 
“ancient” buildings. There is absolutely no information about the 
foundations, their strength, shape, size, and extent of these 
monuments. Absolutely no physical/technical examination/test or 
analysis of the monuments has been conducted in relation to the 
subject project, though all of the above information & tests were 
absolutely inevitable to determine the endurance/threshold level 
and the susceptibility of the monuments in relation to the amplitude 
of the vibration caused by the construction machinery/equipments, 
and/or by transit of the train. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
70
 
18. 
 
Although the proponents seem to have undertaken 
extensive field investigation of the soil and subsurface condition, 
through base hole test along the alignment of the project and 
generally on the side of the road, and about 5-meter from the 
centre line, and it is claimed that standard penetration tests were 
used to determine the compactness/density of the soil, and that 
silty clay and clayey silt upto 6-8 meters in depth, and thereafter silty 
sand and sandy silt have been found, and further that Lahore’s soil 
is generally silty clay and clayey silt, however, no geotechnical 
investigations were carried out between the track alignment and 
the monuments or around the monuments which would have been 
more prudent and appropriate for achieving precision, more so for 
the reason that no verification, by any geologist, has been 
submitted to support the claim that there shall be absolutely no 
material 
variation 
in 
the 
nature, 
properties, 
qualities 
and 
characteristics of the different strata of the soil and the other 
relevant components contiguous to and around the monuments. 
19. 
 
As is well known the vibration amplitude reduces as it 
propagates from the source to the receiver. The larger the distance, 
the lesser the amplitude. In the present case, there are two different 
sources of vibration, one is the operation/deployment of the 
construction machinery/ equipment, during the construction phase, 
and the other would be the transit of train during the operational 
phase. Construction machinery, as can be seen from the 
photographs at page 8 of CMA No.8592/2016 in CA 2144/2016, 
operates from and is deployed upto the point well beyond the 
viaduct piers, and beyond the raft in the elevated section, and are 
so deployed upto the point beyond the edge of the trench for the 
tunnel/box of the cut and cover section. Whereas the train transit 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
71
 
induced vibration is transmitted into the soil and propagates 
towards the monuments, from the raft of the pier, and from the 
edge of the cover/roof slab of the cut and cover tunnel/box, as the 
medium through which the vibration is transmitted beyond the train 
track changes from that of the viaduct and cut and cover systems, 
respectively, into the contiguous soil at these two points. Therefore 
the closest point for the vibration source for the monuments during 
construction is the edge of the trench of the raft, and the edge of 
the top/roof slab of the cut and cover tunnel/box. Certainly the 
source of vibration must be calculated from the point of origin of 
the energy. However, the distance for calculating/evaluating the 
level of vibration for the construction phase has, in respect of 
elevated viaduct system, been taken from the middle line of the 
width of the pier, instead of the edge of the trench of the raft, and 
for the cut and cover section, it has been taken from the edge of 
the cover/roof slab of the subway tunnel/box, instead of the edge 
of the trench of the cut and cover tunnel. Thus the NESPAK 
measurements of the viaduct system refers to the distance in 
between the middle of the viaduct piers and the monument wall, 
whereas the actual distance is 6.43 meters (21 feet) closer to the 
monument then stated by NESPAK, and verified by TYPSA Asia. This 
additional/excessive distance of 6.43 meters (21 feet) has been 
calculated by taking into account the distance between the 
middle line of the pier and the edge of the raft/pile cap, being 5.4 
meters (17.8 feet), plus the distance between the edge of the 
raft/pile cap and the edge of the trench dug for the raft/pile cap. 
Similarly, by ignoring the distance between the edge of the 
roof/top slab of the cut and cover trench/box and the edge of the 
tunnel trench, NESPAK has taken into account an additional 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
72
 
distance of 4.82 meters (15.81 ft.) in respect of the cut and cover 
section. 
Both 
the 
above 
additional/excessive 
distances/calculations 
are 
clearly 
demonstrated 
through 
photographs at pages 3 and 4 of the presentation submitted by Mr. 
Kamil Khan Mumtaz, and thus the level/amplitude of vibration 
received or to be received by the monuments has been calculated 
on the basis of distances greater than the actual, and cannot, 
therefore, be relied upon.  
20. 
 
The 
calculation 
suffers 
from 
another 
inadequacy/inaccuracy as the size, shape and extent of the 
foundations of the monuments have not been discovered and 
have thus not been taken into account while calculating the 
relevant distance. Possibility of the footings/foundations setting of 
the monuments spreading/existing beyond the visible structure of 
the monuments, bringing the monuments still closer to the Project 
site cannot therefore be ruled out. 
21. 
 
As noted earlier neither have the structures of the 
monuments been examined, or assessed nor is any structural 
resilience data thereof available, however, from the record of the 
present case, it can well be seen that the monuments, especially 
the protected heritage amongst those, are quite old in age. Atleast 
three (3) of the antiquities are more than three hundred and 
seventy years (370 years) old. Some of the monuments, as recorded 
by Dr. Pamela Rogers, have suffered structural instability and have 
also developed signs of stress, cracks and neglect. However, 
NESPAK in determining the vibration impact tolerance level of the 
monuments, have applied a threshold value of 3 mm/s which is 
prescribed by German Standard DIN 4150-3 for “buildings of great 
intrinsic value”. Whereas, as noted by structural engineer, 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
73
 
Muhammad Khalil Rehman in his note dated 05.1.2017, (annexure 
‘D’  to CMA No.196/2017 in CA 2144/2016), the technical advisory 
note TAV-04-01-R020 at page 17 of the CALTRAN manual states that 
there is a real possibility of structural damage to historical buildings 
and buildings in poor condition by transit of a train from within 15 
meters (50 ft to 100 ft) thereof. It may be noted that it is in fact the 
CALTRAN standard that has been applied by NESPAK in relation to 
the construction machinery/equipment in this case. However, for 
monuments/heritage buildings it has used DIN Standard instead, 
which, as noted above, prescribes the threshold limit in respect of 
“Building of Great Intrinsic Value” and not for “heritage building”, 
for closer to which category, it is CALTRAN which prescribes a 
tolerance level of 2mm/s (0.08/s), under the description ‘ancient 
monuments or ruins”. 
22. 
 
A reference to the following passages from a research 
study/paper in relation to ‘Metro Train induced vibration on historic 
building in Changu, China” published in a journal of Zhenjiang 
University – Science A (Applied Physic and Engineering) also may be 
relevant in the present context. 
“Generally, it is extremely rare for vibrations from 
train operations to cause any sort of building 
damage, even minor cosmetic damage (Heckl 
et al., 1996). However, there is sometimes a 
concern regarding long-term vibration effects on 
historic buildings located near the subway lines. 
Traffic vibrations are usually low, but lasting, 
which could lead to potential damage, like 
building 
material 
fatigue 
and 
foundation 
settlement to historic buildings. For structures that 
have suffered from weathering, desquamation, 
or have cracks, even low velocities could give 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
74
 
rise 
to 
fatigue 
damage 
with 
frequent 
occurrences.” 
“For 
modern 
steel 
structures 
or 
reinforced 
structures, it is believed that a PPV lower than 10 
mm/s will rarely cause any sort of building 
damage. For historic buildings and memorials, 
the criteria are usually stricter, from 3 to 10 mm/s 
PPV, depending on local codes, which are 
summarized by Ma et al. (2009). Numerous 
measurements 
show 
that 
typical 
ground 
vibration levels from underground tunnels lie in 
the range of 0.05–1.00 mm/s, lower than the 
values in the codes mentioned above, but there 
remains the possibility of damages to historic 
buildings. That is, the PPVs between 3 and 10 
mm/s do not generally consider architectural 
damage, but rather structural damage.” 
“The Chinese National Code (GB/T 50452-2008) 
gives a criterion of 0.10–0.75 mm/s, which is now 
one of the strictest allowable values in the world 
and could be used to evaluate architectural 
damage. In this code, the fatigue limit is used to 
fix the allowable velocities. When the cyclic stress 
is lower than the limit, the materials and structures 
are unlikely to be destroyed by fatigue. In this 
case study, for the brick-masonry structure listed 
as a State Protected Historic Site, the allowable 
horizontal PPV at the top of the monument is 
0.15–0.25 mm/s, according to GB/T 50452-2008. 
 
23. 
 
With the various inaccuracies, inadequacies, anomalies 
and lacunas as discussed in paras 17 to 21 hereinabove, the safe 
distance from the project alignment to the monuments, as 
mentioned by Dr. Pamela Rogers is thirty two feets (32 ft.), but the 
Supreme Court Registry Building, Saint Andrew Church and Mauj 
Daraya Darbar are situated at much shorter distances. Whereas the 
Lakshmi building lies just outside the said limit, which monument, 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
75
 
according to her, is already in a fragile state of existence. The 
monuments have thus been rendered unsafe by the proposed 
construction of the project, even as per Dr. Rogers calculations. 
24. 
 
The Mughal era hydraulic tank near the entrance of 
the Shalamar Garden, which is integral part of the Garden is, 
according to Dr. Rogers, very close to the alignment of the viaduct, 
and will in fact be partially underneath the viaduct and is 
particularly at risk. The continuous low level vibration from the Train 
transit, in the opinion of Dr. Rogers, may cause structural damage to 
the existing fabric, which opinion is in consonance with the opinion 
expressed by a study published by Zhenjiang University reproduced 
at page 16 hereof. It is also crucial to note that the cumulative 
effect 
of 
the 
various 
construction 
machineries 
operating 
simultaneously has also not been taken into account, which may 
have a serious bearing in fixing the level of vibration.   
25. 
 
A further anomaly in the NESPAK report is that the peak 
acceleration and peak velocities (vibration) for Supreme Court and 
St. Andrew Church buildings are given as less than such value of 
Mauj 
Darya 
Darbar, 
even 
though 
the 
distances 
of 
construction/operation point(s) for Mauj Darya Darbar is given 
greater than such distance for that of the Supreme Court building. 
26. 
 
As noted earlier, the definition of the physical 
mechanism that generates vibration is the foremost component, 
and the most crucial factor for the study/analysis and evaluation of 
vibration. In the present case such physical mechanism is a train, 
said to be a “Chinese standard BI train”. It may also be recalled 
that the specifications like unsprung mass, distance between axles, 
primary suspension and stiffness of the suspension, of the vehicle are 
the most relevant, and crucial specifications/information for 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
76
 
evaluating the transit induced vibration. However, despite request 
from TYPSA Asia, data regarding the unsprung mass and the 
dynamic stiffness of the relevant elements was not furnished to 
them. It was because of lack of information that many 
specifications and details were assumed to be similar to a model 
used in a study/paper known as XIA.H.Zhang. N, which was feed by 
NESPAK in the Structural Analysis Computer Program, SAP2000, to 
simulate the excitation of the Metro train as supposedly being 
compatible to “Chinese standard BI train”. However absolutely no 
information has been laid, and no explanation submitted before us, 
as to the basis of the assumed compatibility between the said train 
and the XIA model and therefore, it cannot be said with any 
certainty that the specification values and configuration used to 
assess and evaluate the amplitude of the vibration generated by 
the subject train are in fact the same as that of the XIA model train, 
relevant details of which model also have not been placed before 
us and the result thus achieved cannot be sanctified by this Court. 
27. 
 
It may be relevant to observe here that Typsa-Asia who 
were appointed as experts to verify the credibility of the Nespak 
reports, have in their report proceeded to endorse the Nespak 
reports without analysing the same properly and by ignoring the 
various deficiencies, discrepancies, inadequacies and anomalies 
therein, as discussed in detail hereinbefore. It can also be seen from 
the Typsa’s report that certain very crucial information and details 
sought by Typsa from Nespak were either not provided or where 
provided were incomplete or inadequate, and as acknowledged in 
the report itself, in respect of some issues, Typsa had to proceed on 
assumptions. Typsa’s report is therefore of no avail in the matter. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
77
 
28. 
 
As discussed in detail in the following passages from a 
World Bank publication titled, “The Economic of Uniqueness, 
investing in historic city cores and cultural heritage assets for 
sustainable development”, which is a collection of research papers 
authored by leading scholars and practitioners in heritage 
economics. It is now well recognised that “heritage is a public 
good”, and “yields public good benefits”. It provides “crucially 
needed continuity and stability”, helps in “poverty alleviation” and 
that heritage “anchors people to their roots, builds self esteem and 
restores dignity”, and serves as a “driver of local economic 
development and prosperity”. Heritage “might deteriorate or 
depreciate if not maintained and impose on the present 
generation a duty of care so they can be handed to future 
generation”. “The positive influence of cultural heritage on 
liveability, economic growth and local economic development is 
also now well established. Whereas undoubtedly liveability is not a 
middle class luxury. It is an economic imperative:   
“In a world where more than half of the 
population now lives in cities and more than 
ninety 90 percent (90%) of urban growth occurs 
in the developing world, cities try hard to 
modernize without losing their unique character, 
embodied in their historic cores and heritage 
assets. As cities expand rapidly, conservation and 
continued use of heritage can provide crucially 
needed continuity and stability. In other words, 
the past can become a foundation for the 
future”. 
“Cities that are the most successful at attracting 
investment 
and 
businesses 
to 
meet 
the 
aspirations of their citizens, while alleviating 
poverty and promoting inclusion are those that 
harness all of their resources, including their 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
78
 
heritage. In addition, heritage anchors people to 
their roots, builds self-esteem, and restores 
dignity. Identity matters to all vibrant cities and all 
people”.  
“Heritage is a public good and the economic 
justification for public sector investment is well 
established”.  
“The good news is that there is an increasing 
trend toward financing projects aimed at 
conserving and incorporating heritage into 
development strategies. All countries, developed 
and developing, are indeed investing more into 
conserving their city cores and heritage, with 
projects focusing particularly on landmarks and 
other major assets”.  
“In economics, heritage can be seen as an asset, 
with the theoretical basis in capital theory. The 
concept of capital has then been extended into 
the field of culture and heritage, with the 
definition of cultural capital”.  
“Like any other form of capital, both cultural and 
natural capital have been inherited from the 
past, might deteriorate or depreciate if not 
maintained, 
and 
impose 
on 
the 
present 
generation a duty of care so they can be 
handed down to future  generations”.  
“It is widely acknowledged that heritage has a 
value to the community in which it is located. 
Among the resources that these cities need to 
harness are their heritage assets, which are 
unique features that differentiate them from 
other cities”.  
“Tourism has emerged as one of the fastest-
growing sectors of the world economy. The 
average growth of tourism arrivals, as the world 
economy recovers, is likely to continue to grow in 
the decades to come. This is especially due to 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
79
 
growing interest in visiting and enjoying vibrant 
cities and heritage assets”. 
“Tourism, by virtue of being a labour intensive 
activity, can allow the large pool of unemployed 
and underemployed individuals in developing 
countries to get jobs and in turn create the 
conditions for a sustained and broad-based 
growth”. 
“Tourism has spill over effects in other economic 
sectors: the foreign direct investment associated 
with it can in fact bring managerial skills and 
technology with potential benefits to other 
sectors. Policies designed to foster tourism 
………… can enhance growth in other sectors 
and distribute wealth more widely”. 
“Investment in heritage was driven by the need 
to conserve and upgrade specific endangered 
assets in the phase of rapid urbanization, and to 
prevent and mitigate the possible adverse 
impacts of large infrastructural projects”. 
“Heritage yields public good benefits that can 
be classified in the same ways as environmental 
non-market benefits”.  
“This book takes inspiration from Nobel Prize 
Laureate Robert Merton Solow’s quotation: “Over 
the long term, places with strong, distinctive 
identities are more likely to prosper than places 
without them. Every place must identify its 
strongest, most distinctive features and develop 
them or run the risk of being all things to all 
persons and nothing special to any. 
[…] 
Liveability is not a middle-class luxury. It is an 
economic imperative.” 
“The positive influence of cultural heritage on 
liveability, 
economic 
growth, 
and 
local 
economic development has been increasingly 
studied and discussed in the last few decades”. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
80
 
“Historic city cores and their cultural heritage 
assets 
can 
have 
an 
effective 
role 
in 
differentiating a city from its competitors and in 
improving liveability and attractiveness”. 
“In a context of rapid urbanization, old cities 
struggle to modernize without completely losing 
their character. In the absence of a strategic 
public intervention to steer their transformation, 
many of them simply drift into a haphazard mix of 
demolition, 
new 
construction, 
and 
building 
upgrading 
……………………… 
The 
level 
of 
economic activity these cities can sustain 
typically increases, sometimes substantially, but in 
the process these places also lose their distinctive 
traits and become less liveable. This is not merely 
a concern of culture-loving intellectuals in the 
rich world, who may be too privileged to fully 
value the benefits of rapid urbanization. In many 
cases, the inhabitants of these cities also regret 
the 
loss 
of 
a 
sense 
of 
place 
and 
the 
disappearance of the physical markers of their 
identity”.  
“The frantic transformation of centuries-old Asian 
cities into soulless agglomerations of generic 
architecture is an obvious illustration of this trend. 
Moreover, there is an element of irreversibility in 
transformations of this kind, as recovering what 
was lost is enormously more expensive than it 
would have been to preserve it in the first place”. 
“Admittedly, there is also an increasing trend 
toward financing heritage projects, aimed at 
protecting and restoring unique buildings or 
architectural ensembles”.   
 
29. 
 
Heritage has to be preserved and protected in all 
respects, all of it virtue, qualities, facets and characteristics are to 
be secured from all kinds of harms, including impairment of its visual 
integrity. According to Dr. Pamela Rogers, the concept of visual 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
81
 
integrity is frequently considered crucial in relation to the 
preservation of a heritage sites. Visual integrity may pertain 
specifically to vistas, panoramas, viewpoints, and silhouettes. Visual 
Integrity can also be taken to mean the capacity of a heritage to 
maintain its visual distinctiveness, and to visually demonstrate its 
relationship with its surroundings.   
30. 
 
The importance of and significance attached to the 
protection of important views, and their contribution, and 
relevance in building an image for a historic town, and also in 
promoting the welfare of the people, can be well appreciated from 
the following passage of a research paper: 
“Preservation of the character of historic towns 
and mitigating the impacts of new development 
has been a challenging task for spatial planning 
authorities throughout the world. In preserving 
the character of historic towns, protection of 
important views of heritage buildings and 
landmarks plays an important role. Most of these 
heritage buildings strongly contribute in forming 
an image for the historic town. The existence of 
such 
views, 
often 
containing 
well 
known 
cherished landmarks and landscapes, enriches 
our daily lives, attracts tourist and helps our 
communities prosper. “Views play an important 
part 
in 
shaping 
our 
appreciation 
and 
understanding of historic environment, in towns 
and cities and in the countryside. Some views are 
designed to be seen as a unity, more commonly; 
a significant view is a historical composite, the 
cumulative result of a long history”. 
 
31. 
 
It may, in the above context, be beneficial also to 
reproduce certain extracts from an article authored by Leo Hollis, 
titled “How are protected views shaping cities” quoted in the 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
82
 
impugned judgment, as being reflective of the emphasis that the 
city planners put on protected views in order to preserve the 
fundamentals of a  city and to protect the character of the 
landscape that characterizes the features of that city, and also the 
emphasis laid on the significance attributed to preserving such 
views, as follows:-  
"In recent months, the council has been 
responding to widespread concerns that the city 
of "dreaming spires" was about to be swamped 
by a rash of tall new buildings. As a result, 
alongside English Heritage and other agencies, 
the council has devised policies that create a 
series of protected views, triangular sections that 
cut across the map in order to preserve the 
vertical skyline of the city." 
"A section of city panoramas from particular 
points of historic or local interest have been 
protected, taking in, not just individual historical 
buildings, but also the topography, the city as a 
landscape 
of 
natural 
features, 
variegated 
heights and forms, combining into a pleasing 
image…" 
"…Since the 1960s, different city governments 
have looked at the preservation of views as a 
way of controlling the shape, in particular the 
vertical outline, of cities. How tall should a 
building be and where should it fit in? Are 
skyscrapers only for downtown? What kind of 
building - office, monument, and apartment 
block      - should be allowed to rise into the sky? 
What can it obscure and what must it not 
overshadow?" 
"…For some, cities are changing too fast and in 
the wrong places. They are losing their character 
and being replaced by a ubiquitous glass and 
steel architecture that offers no sense of location. 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
83
 
Tall towers are replacing the human scale of the 
city's heritage." 
"…Protected views are ways of managing 
change: restricting growth in some parts, ring - 
fencing and preserving the significant aspects. It 
prioritizes the ocular encounter with the city. The 
metropolis must "look right to be right." 
"…there 
was 
public 
concern 
about 
the 
"Manhattanisation" of the financial district of San 
Francisco that many people thought would 
damage the "city pattern". This was developed 
into a general plan passed into law in 1995, 
including the preservation of "major views 
whenever it is feasible, with special attention to 
the characteristic views of open space and 
water that reflect the natural setting of the city 
and give a colorful and refreshing contrast to 
man's development." 
"For example, are protected views the best way 
to preserve the heritage of the city? The 2006 
Street View study conducted by Edinburgh city 
council noted some places were "fundamental" 
to the city, and key views were "precious" and 
even "sacrosanct" in providing a "sense of the 
city". 
 
32. 
 
In the case of Penn Central Transportation Co. v. City of 
New York 438 U.S.104 (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court whilst 
upholding the decision of the New York City’s landmark 
Preservation Commission, denying permission to construct an office 
tower on top of the Grand Central Terminal, a railroad station in 
midtown Manhattan, endorsed the governmental restriction on 
historic building, and upheld the historic preservation as a legitimate 
governmental objective. The Court also sanctified the preservation 
programs around the country by upholding New York City’s historic 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
84
 
preservation laws, which restricted changes to the property 
designated landmarks and historic preservation. 
33. 
 
The judgment recognized the fact that the municipal 
laws to encourage or require preservation of the heritage building 
were enacted in the back drop of the historic building being 
destroyed as the same were not being valued as much as those 
ought to have been, and also without exploring the possibility of 
preserving them, and in view of a widely shared belief that the 
heritage building enhance the quality of life for all and serve as an 
example of quality for today, thus it was observed that: 
"Over the past 50 years, all 50 States and over 500 
municipalities have enacted laws to encourage 
or require the preservation of buildings and areas 
with historic or aesthetic importance. These 
nationwide 
legislative 
efforts 
have 
been 
precipitated by two concerns. The first is 
recognition that, in recent years, large numbers 
of historic structures, landmarks, and areas have 
been destroyed without adequate consideration 
of either the values represented therein or the 
possibility of preserving the destroyed properties 
for use in economically productive ways. The 
second is a widely shared belief that structures 
with special historic, cultural, or architectural 
significance enhance the quality of life for all. 
Not 
only 
do 
these 
buildings 
and 
their 
workmanship represent the lessons of the past 
and embody precious features of our heritage, 
they serve as examples of quality for today. 
“Historic conservation is but one aspect of the 
much larger problem, basically an environmental 
one, of enhancing - or perhaps developing for 
the first time - the quality of life for people." 
 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
85
 
34. 
 
The 
conclusion 
drawn 
by 
the 
Commission 
was 
approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in the following words:- 
"Landmarks cannot be divested from their setting 
……..………………….. and we must preserve them 
in a meaningful way - with alterations and 
additions of such character, scale, materials and 
mass as will protect, enhance and perpetuate 
the original design rather than overwhelm it."  
 
35. 
 
In the case of South Lakeland District Council v. 
Secretary of State for the Environment [1992] 2 Advisory Committee 
141, his Lord Justice Bridge observed, that: 
"Was it the Parliament's intention that the 
decision-maker should consider very carefully 
whether a proposed development would harm 
the setting of the listed building (or the character 
or appearance of the conservation area), and if 
the conclusion was that there would be some 
harm, then consider whether that harm was 
outweighed by the advantages of the proposal, 
giving that harm such weight as the decision-
maker thought appropriate; or was it Parliament's 
intention that when deciding whether the harm 
to the setting of the listed building was 
outweighed by the advantages of the proposal, 
the decision-maker should give particular weight 
to the desirability of avoiding such harm? And 
that  
“there is no dispute that the intention of section 
[72(1)] is that planning decisions in respect of 
development proposed to be carried out in a 
conservation area must give a high priority to the 
objective 
of 
preserving 
or 
enhancing 
the 
character or appearance of the area. If any 
proposed development would conflict with that 
objective, there will be a strong presumption 
against the grant of planning permission, though, 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
86
 
no doubt, in exceptional cases the presumption 
may be overridden in favour of development 
which is desirable on the ground of some other 
public interest. 
 
36. 
 
Similar 
views 
were 
expressed 
in 
the 
case 
of 
Hetherington (UK) Ltd. v. Secretary of State for the Environment 
[1996] 69. P & CR. 874. 
 
 
37. 
 
In the case of Barnwell Manor Wind Energy Ltd. v. East 
Northamptonshire District Council etc. [2014] EWCA Civ 137, in an 
appeal against the order quashing the decision of a Planning 
Inspector, whereby  the former granted planning permission for a 
four-turbine wind farm on land north of Catshead Woods, 
Northamptonshire, in the face of section 66 of the Planning (Listed 
Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990, which required that the 
planning authority, while considering as to whether or not grant 
planning permission for development which affects a listed building 
or its setting, shall have special regard to the desirability of 
preserving the building or its setting or any features of special 
architectural or historic interest which it possesses, and in dealing 
with the question as to what extent the visible presence of turbine 
proposed to be erected in the wind farm site (which was around 1.3 
KM from the boundary of the registered park and 1.7 KM from the 
New Beild itself), would affect the significance of the heritage assets 
concerned, the inspector observed that the tribune array would not 
intrude on any obviously intended planned view out of the garden 
or from the garden lodge, as in his view, a reasonable observer 
would know that the turbine array was a modern addition to the 
landscape, separate from the planned historic landscape or 
building they were within, or considering or interpreting, and thus 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
87
 
held that the presence of the wind turbine array would not be so 
distracting that it would prevent or make unduly difficult, an 
understanding, appreciation or interpretation of the significance of 
the elements that make up Lyveden New Bield and Lyveden Old 
Bield, or their relationship to each other. And therefore, the effect 
on the setting of these designated heritage assets would not reach 
the level of substantial harm.   
38. 
 
His Lordship of the Court of appeal, referring to South 
Lake and Hetherington (UK) Ltd. (supra) with approval, proceeded 
to observe that:   
 "…In my view, Glidewell LJ's judgment is authority 
for the proposition that a finding of harm to the 
setting of a listed building is a consideration to 
which 
the 
decision-maker 
must 
give 
"considerable importance and weight." And also 
"That conclusion is reinforced by the passage in 
the speech of Lord Bridge in South Lakeland to 
which I have referred (paragraph 20 above). It is 
true, as Mr. Nardell submits, that the ratio of that 
decision is that "preserve" means do no harm". 
However, Lord Bridge's explanation of the 
statutory purpose is highly persuasive, and his 
observation 
that 
there 
will 
be 
a 
"strong 
presumption" against granting permission for 
development that would harm the character or 
appearance of a conservation area is consistent 
with Glidewell LJ's conclusion in Bath. There is a 
"strong presumption" against granting planning 
permission for development which would harm 
the character or appearance of a conservation 
area 
precisely 
because 
the 
desirability 
of 
preserving the character or appearance of the 
area 
is 
a 
consideration 
of 
"considerable 
importance and weight." 
 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
88
 
39. 
 
Discussing the decision of Ouseley J. in Garner v. 
Elmbridge Borough Council [2014] EWCA Civ 891, His Lordship 
observed: 
"…Garner is an example of the practical 
application of the advice in policy HE9.1: that 
substantial harm to designated heritage assets of 
the highest significance should not merely be 
exceptional, 
but 
"wholly 
exceptional". 
And 
concluded that:  
"For the reason I agree with Lang J’s  conclusion 
that Parliament's intention in enacting section 
66(1) was that decision-makers should give 
"considerable importance and weight" to the 
desirability of preserving the setting of listed 
buildings when carrying out the balancing 
exercise:” And that “the Inspector did not give 
considerable importance and weight to this 
factor when carrying out the balancing exercise 
in this decision. He appears to have treated the 
less than substantial harm to the setting of the 
listed buildings, including Lyveden New Bield, as 
a less than substantial objection to the grant of 
planning permission. The Appellant's Skeleton 
Argument effectively conceded as much in 
contending that the weight to be given to this 
factor was, subject only to irrationality, entirely a 
matter for the Inspector's planning judgment. In 
his oral submissions Mr. Nardell contended that 
the Inspector had given considerable weight to 
this factor, but he was unable to point to any 
particular passage in the decision letter which 
supported this contention, and there is a marked 
contrast between the "significant weight" which 
the Inspector expressly gave in paragraph 85 of 
the decision letter to the renewable energy 
considerations in favour of the proposal having 
regard to the policy advice in PPS22, and the 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
89
 
manner in which he approached the section 
66(1) duly. It is true that the Inspector set out the 
duty in paragraph 17 of the decision letter, but at 
no stage in the decision letter did he expressly 
acknowledge the need, if he found that there 
would be harm to the setting of the many listed 
buildings, to give considerable weight to the 
desirability of preserving the setting of those 
buildings. This is a fatal flaw in the decision even if 
grounds 2 and 3 are not made out." 
 
40. 
 
In North Norfolk District Council v Secretary of State for 
Communities and Local Government etc. [2014] EWHC 279 (Admin), 
High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division where wind turbine 
was to be erected in open countryside on the side of Cromer 
Ridge, which is one of the highest points in North Norfolk with 
implications both for visibility and for wind performance. There were 
a number of listed buildings in the area. The application for 
planning permission was revised by the Council on the ground of its 
impact on landscape and heritage assets. The High Court of 
Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, proceeded to hold as follows: 
"But the question remains whether in substance 
he did have that special regard to the desirability 
of preserving the settings of the heritage assets as 
part of the consideration that led to his decision, 
notwithstanding that, as I find, in approaching 
that question he did not expressly have regard to 
the 
statutory 
requirement 
as 
such. 
In 
approaching that question I remind myself of the 
helpful guidance in Garner that it is not 
necessary for the decision maker to pass through 
a particular series of legal hoops to comply with 
Section 66(1) nor, I would add, does he have to 
recite any particular mantra or form of words to 
demonstrate that he has done so. However, 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
90
 
adopting the formulation of Mr Justice Ouseley 
approved by the Court of Appeal in Garner, that 
does not mean that the decision maker can 
"treat the desirability of preserving the setting of a 
listed building as a mere material consideration 
to which (he) can simply attach the weight (he) 
sees fit in (his) judgment. The statutory language 
goes beyond that and treats the preservation of 
the setting of a listed building as presumptively 
desirable. So, if a development would harm the 
setting of a listed building, there has to be 
something of sufficient strength in the merits of 
the development to outweigh that harm. The 
language of presumption against permission or 
strong countervailing reasons for its grant is 
appropriate. It is an obvious consequence of the 
statutory language rather than an illegitimate 
substance for it." 
"…However, the problem that it faces is that, on 
the conclusion to which I have come, the 
inspector did not in fact have regard to the 
statutory duty but applied a simple balancing 
exercise under paragraph 134 of the NPPF. In the 
particular circumstances of this decision it is not 
possible to know how the balance would or 
might have been affected if he had special 
regard to the desirability of the preservation of 
the settings in accordance with the approach 
helpfully summarized in Garner and set out in the 
other authorities to which I have referred." 
 
41. 
 
Perusal of the following passage from Binay Kumar 
Mishra v State of Behar and others (AIR 2001 Patna 148), may also 
be relevant: 
"It needs no emphasis to mention that protection 
and preservation of our cultural property against 
the dangers of damage and destruction resulting 
from theft, vandalism, clandestine excavations 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
91
 
and illicit traffic is our sacred duty, which we owe 
to 
posterity. 
Cultural 
heritage 
along 
with 
environment is very essential to the well being 
and to the enjoyment of man's basic rights- even 
the right to life itself. This justifies on the statute 
book, the aforesaid legislations aimed at taking 
all possible measures to stop the impoverishment 
of the cultural heritage. The concern for 
protection of such heritage is not limited to India. 
Governments of most of the countries in the 
world today are addressing themselves to this 
problem. The entire humanity is anxious about 
it…" 
  
42. 
 
The famous Taj Mehal case, reported as (1997) 2 SCC 
353, which was a watershed case of supervision done by the 
Supreme Court of India for three long years culminating into passing 
of orders whereby the industries situated within the Taj Trapezium 
Zone and emitting pollution by the use of Coal as fuel and causing 
damage to the Taj Mehal were ordered to be dealt with in a 
certain manner. The Court also appointed an expert committee, 
who’s report along with other reports of the committees were 
considered by the Court before rendered the final judgment. The 
expert advice through UNESCO was also sought. The case is 
significant for its rulings that the objective behind the litigation was 
to stop pollution while encouraging development of industry. It was 
held that sustainable development was the answer. In the final 
analysis the industries were directed to change over to natural gas 
as an industrial fuel. Other industries were directed to be relocated 
to other industrial areas. 
43. 
 
In EMCA Construction Co. v. Archaeological Survey of 
India and others, (2009) 113 DRJ 446, the learned Delhi High Court 
upheld the interim order passed by the court below, and directed 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
92
 
the Central Government to remove the structures within 100 meters 
of the Humayun's Tomb.  
44. 
 
As highlighted in the following passage from an 
authenticated professional study/research paper, visual assessment 
study and visual impact study have now become, integral and 
significant part of designing and planning process, whereas view 
scope analysis, and view protection are of crucial importance to 
the discipline of visual assessment and impact study:  
“The importance of visual assessment study in 
urban analysis has long been recognized. The 
construction of the city of Rome and early Italian 
hill-towns have been influenced by established 
lines of sight (Bacon, E.1967), and the planned 
development of visually prominent locations. The 
visual impact studies have now become part of 
urban design and planning process. Several cities 
throughout world conduct similar studies related 
to view scope analysis and view protection (for 
example, 
London 
View 
Management 
Framework, 2010; Seattle View Protection Policy, 
2001)”. 
 
45. 
 
The following passage may also be relevant to the 
present discussion:  
“In the Indian context studies and research 
specifically 
focusing 
on 
views 
of 
historic 
landmarks and their preservation were not given 
importance. But there is a need for such research 
to protect the views of large number of our 
ancient 
monuments, 
which 
are 
constantly 
threatened 
by 
the 
surrounding 
urban 
development which obscure the traditionally 
enjoyed views.” 
 
46. 
 
Dilating upon the approach, object and the purpose of 
visual impact assessment, and the essential requirements, scope 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
93
 
and parameters of the study, it is stated that “The assessment 
process aims to be objective and to quantify effects as far as 
possible. However, it is recognized that subjective judgment is 
appropriate. If it is based upon training and experience, and 
supported by clear evidence, reasoned argument and informed 
opinion. Whilst changes to a view can be factually defined, the 
evaluation of townscape and visual amenity does require 
qualitative judgments on the significance of effects to be made. 
The conclusions of this assessment therefore combine systematic 
observation 
and 
measurement 
with 
informed 
professional 
interpretation”. 
47. 
 
For 
the 
purpose 
of 
Viewscape 
Assessment 
for 
Protecting the Views of Monuments, it is found “important to study 
the visual relationship between sacred monuments and places from 
where the views are available, so as to identify the most important 
views for protection”.  
48. 
 
The results of the study demonstrate the method for 
assessment of views so as to identify the significant viewscapes for 
preservation and enhancement. 
49. 
 
In order to protect the important views, it was found 
necessary to assess the factors which affect the quality of views, 
and the quality of place from where the view is available and to 
examine the following attributes of the view scope.  
(a) 
Visibility of the monument;  
(b) 
Classification of view, based on distance; 
(c) 
Type of view;  
(d) 
Dominance in skyline;  
(e) 
Background and Foreground of the viewing 
plane;  
(f) 
Obstruction Type.  
In case of the viewing place, the relevant 
attributes being: 
a) 
Type of viewing place;  
b) 
Place characteristics of the view point, i.e.,  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
94
 
i. 
location,  
ii. 
assessment view point, 
iii. 
place elevation, 
iv. 
activities,  
v. 
land use,  
vi. 
general ambience, and,  
vii. 
potential viewers. 
 
50. 
 
Using the methodological View Assessment Framework, 
it was found that significance of views varies according to the 
location, visibility, quality of view, quality of viewpoint, view type, 
etc. Among the variety of criteria used for assessing the view 
significance, the visibility of structure, its dominance in the skyline 
and type of view has more weightage than the others. The visibility 
of the structure is graded, based on the percentage of visibility in a 
three point scale as Highly Visible, Moderately Visible and Poorly 
Visible. In classifying the view based on distance, most of the 
panoramic views are distant views. Among the various types of 
views, the street end view gains significance due to its spatial 
configuration. ………… Most of the street end views can be 
appreciated under the immediate and intermediate view ranges.  
51. 
 
This study not only classifies the significant views, 
viewpoints, visual corridors which need to be protected but also 
identifies the obstructing elements which need to be removed from 
the viewscape. The study has also revealed that the characteristics 
of the viewing place have very little influence on the significance of 
the view. Even if the general ambience of the viewing place is 
poor, it is still appreciated and frequented if the point offers the best 
view available. However, improving such view places will enhance 
the viewing experience. 
52. 
 
In her HIA report Dr. Pamela Rogers has described the 
concept of visual integrity as crucial to the preservation of a 
heritage sites. She states that ‘Visual integrity” may pertain 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
95
 
specifically to vistas, panoramas, viewpoints, and silhouettes, and 
describes the Visual Integrity as the capacity of a heritage to 
maintain its visual distinctiveness, and to visually demonstrate its 
relationship with its surroundings.   
53. 
 
In relation to the OLMT project she submits that “Two 
points are of importance in assessing visual impacts; firstly, the 
height of the elevated track in relation to the view-lines to and from 
the heritage sites, and secondly, of the current Visual Character of 
the heritage site in its setting. This refers to the value and character 
of existing views of Sensitive Receivers within the visual envelope 
(the area where views and viewers may be affected, the area 
within which the proposed development is wholly or partly visible to 
the visual receivers). 
54. 
 
Amongst the four key potential impacts on the subject 
heritage as identified in Dr. Rogers HIA report, are Visual barriers and 
intrusions created by the viaduct. Dr. Rogers claims that the various 
potential impacts identified in the report, can bear directly on the 
significance of the heritage buildings. As an illustration she submits 
that a direct line between a visitor to Ziab-un-Nisa Tomb upwards 
towards the elevated track may imply strong negative impact. She 
opined that the nature of an elevated viaduct design inevitably 
creates residual impacts that cannot be fully mitigated. As regards 
Chouburji, she states that much of the significance of the said 
monument lies in its value as a highly visible icon of the city of 
Lahore, and that the setting of the building will be directly 
impacted and will require reinstatement. Though she states that 
visibility of the Shalimar Garden to a passerby as a landmark will not 
be impacted by the operation of the train, as by definition the 
garden within its peripheral wall is inward looking, she however 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
96
 
points out that the elevated viaduct shall cause visual intrusion from 
the upper terrace of the garden which may have impact on its 
significance. In her assessment the visual impact of the project on 
Chouburji shall be “very high”, whereas in respect of Shalimar 
Garden, Ghullabi Bagh gateway, Budhu Ka Awa and Lakshmi 
building it shall be “high”, and the impact in respect of GPO, Aiwan-
e-Auqaf and Zaibun Nisa Tomb shall be “medium”. Such impact in 
respect of Supreme Court, Branch Registry, Saint Andrew Church 
and Mauj Darya Darbar has been assessed by her as “low”. 
55. 
 
According to her, threat to the significance to Gulabi 
Bagh gateway from the impact of the elevated viaduct shall be by 
way of visual intrusion. Regarding Chouburji, she further states that 
the operational phase impact thereon shall primarily be by way of 
visual impairment. 
56. 
 
Amongst 
the 
various 
attributes 
of 
the 
relevant 
monuments recognized by Dr. Rogers as carrying their significance, 
is the monuments visibility to a passerby as a landmark.  
57. 
 
Dr. Roger states that “Deciding on the acceptability of 
impacts requires a professional value judgment about the severity 
and importance of a case” and that “The impact is acceptable if 
the assessment indicates that there will be no significant effects on 
the fabric, setting or values of a heritage place or on the function or 
performance of intangible heritage”. According to her, “the impact 
is unacceptable if the adverse effects are considered too excessive 
and are unable to mitigate practically” and that “the impact is 
undetermined if significant adverse effects are likely, but the extent 
to which they may occur or may be mitigated cannot be 
determined from the study, further detailed study will be required”. 
She however states that the “existing impacts, need to be factored 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
97
 
into the assessment of potential additional impacts from any 
proposed development or action”. Though she envisages two 
different, rather conflicting, scenario, one where the new 
development, because of the earlier changes, may have a limited 
effect, and the other, where it may worsen the situation further by 
adding to and joining the earlier impairment, she however does not 
prescribe any criteria and/or explain the phenomenon for the said 
two conflicting scenarios in the stated situation.  
58. 
 
She however has found the impacts acceptable, 
purportedly for three different reasons, the first being the existing 
impairment. The second being, her view that the impact can be 
mitigated, and the third, that the benefits of OLMT project to public 
overweigh its harm to the monuments. We find the above analysis 
and stances as misconceived and untenable. In the first place, as 
noted above, no reason or explanation has been given in the 
report, as to why the impact of the project will not worsen the 
situation and will rather be mild, although as noted above, 
according to her the situation may assume either of the two. She 
has also not analyzed and evaluated the level of the existing 
impact, in a scientific and detailed manner (the manner, approach 
and methodology for such exercise has been discussed in the 
earlier part of the judgment). We find it crucial to observe here that 
the approach in relation to heritage should be that its view must not 
be made worse even when it has suffered any past apathy, as even 
if the general ambience of the viewing place is poor, it may still be 
frequated and appreciated as being the best view available. There 
can hardly be any qualm about the suggestion that efforts should 
be made to improve the existing view rather than deteriorating it 
further.  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
98
 
59. 
 
It is crucial to note that it is no body’s case that there 
exist any previous intrusion or obstruction directly in front of any of 
the monuments blocking or impairing the front view or the façade 
thereof. Whereas the elevated viaduct is being constructed not 
only within the 200 ft. protective/ buffer zone, and in close proximity 
to the monuments, but is being built right in front of the monuments, 
with 2300 mm diameter, supporting piers within 30m of each other 
throughout the length of the viaduct, which admittedly will cause 
visual intrusion, break the view line, and grossly overwhelm the 
monument. It is crucial to keep in mind, as noted above, that some 
other obstructions which may presently be existing in the shape of 
some over grown trees, encroachments, illegal/unauthorized 
construction, signages, hoardings, roof projections, etc. (which may 
be impairing some view, of some monuments, to some extent, and 
some of which obstructions may not be of permanent nature, or 
could be removed, or be amenable to correction), certainly do not 
exist right in front of the monument and don’t obstruct, overwhelm, 
eclipse and/or temper  their view as will the viaduct system. It may 
be observed that the piers of the viaduct at some points and from 
certain angles may possibility block almost the entire view of the 
monument and that for someone moving in an automobile, the pier 
may prove far more obstructive than for those not riding such 
transport. As regards the view from the Metro Train, it may be 
observed that it will be available to only those few amongst its 
passengers who will be sitting along the windows, looking over the 
monuments, and that their view too would be very limited and 
restricted, as because of more than 12m height and a close 
distance, (which distance, it may be noted will be shorter than the 
distance between the raft of the viaduct and the monument 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
99
 
because of the largely extended arms of the transoms), and also 
because of the posture of the passengers, only some portion of the 
monuments excluding much of it façade shall be visible, and that 
too they will not be able to enjoy and appreciate properly because 
of the speed of the moving train. As regards the contention that the 
Shalamar Gardens being inward looking, the viaduct will harm the 
visual impact from the Garden and not towards it, it may be 
observed that it is the whole complex of the “Shalamar Gardens” 
that presents a visual experience and pleasure, including its walls 
gates, and other components,      which clearly, rather mainly falls 
within its visual envelope, form an integral part of the monument, 
and are essential components of the majestic ambience and aura 
of the complex, and undoubtedly the view and the visual impact of 
these features of the complex shall be obstructed and impaired by 
the elevated viaduct.  However, as to whether or not the effect of 
visual impairment in relation to these features would be of a 
tolerable nature would be a value judgment to be made by some 
independent, reputable and credible professional in the field. 
60. 
 
The so called mitigating measures suggested in the 
report by way of “improved exterior landscaping”, “sympathetic 
design”, “greening of the structure”, “design and public art 
opportunities” besides being of generic nature, would hardly work 
to mitigate the admitted adverse impacts and, may we respectfully 
say, are in fact wholly inconsequential and irrelevant.  
61. 
 
No doubt OLMT project, being a mass transit project, 
offers fast mobility facility to the people of Lahore and is planned to 
cater to about 245,000 passengers everyday and as claimed, the 
facility shall be an efficient, affordable and environment friendly 
transport service, and shall help in reducing traffic congestion and 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
100
 
the travelling time between places. The vehicles to be employed 
being electric trains will certainly cause reduction of hazardous 
transport related emissions, but if we recall heritage also has its 
immense significance, and offers lot of public goods and yields 
public benefits and also help in poverty alleviation. Its positive 
influence on liveability and economic growth and human 
development is now well recognized. Heritage holds into its field 
some finer graces of civilization. It anchors people to their root, 
builds self esteem and restores dignity and provides an impetus for 
local economic development and prosperity.  
62. 
 
However, it is crucial to understand that the present is 
not a case of competing interest, and the concern all around 
should be to achieve sustainable progress and development, and 
more so when the same could have been, and can still be 
successfully achieved with some effort, prudence and diligence. 
Why should we allow irreversible damage to our priceless assets that 
we have in the shape of centuries old heritage, like the elegant and 
splendid master piece from the times of brilliant Mughal civilization, 
the Shalamar Gardens, which, has been recognized as an “asset of 
outstanding universal value”, having “significance”, which “is so 
exceptional as to transcend national boundaries and to be of 
common importance for present and future generations of all 
humanity”, deserving permanent protection as a “heritage of 
highest importance to the international community as a whole”, 
and has thus been inscribed on the world heritage list, and like the 
monumental gateway known as “Chauburji” because of its four 
towers, which expand from the top, not present any where in the 
sub-continent, which is a beloved urban landmark, and a highly 
visible icon of Lahore.  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
101
 
63. 
 
It is no body’s case that the OLMT project be scrapped. 
All that is required, is to ensure that no harm to the monuments is 
caused by the impact of the project which is, not only our 
obligation under the mandate of the aforesaid two statutes, but, as 
shall be discussed later, also is our commitment to the international 
community. It hardly needs any emphasis that the purpose, object, 
intent, and spirit of the said two laws i.e. the 1975 Act and the 1985 
Ordinance, are the preservation and protection of the “antiquities” 
moveable or immovable both, and the “special premises” 
respectively. Both the laws contain elaborate arrangement and 
provisions for carrying out the aforesaid intent and purpose, 
including that of declaration and listing of particular properties as 
antiquities, 
for 
enforcing 
their 
protection, 
and 
of 
making 
arrangements for custody, preservation and protection of the 
antiquities, for examining and acquisition of any land containing 
antiquities, for purchasing or taking on lease of the antiquities, for 
exercising right of pre-emption in respect of any antiquity, for 
declaring any antiquity to be a protected antiquity, for enforcing 
compulsory 
acquisition 
of 
any 
antiquity, 
for 
prohibition 
of 
destruction/damage of the protected antiquity, for prescribing and 
enforcing measures for protection and preservation of antiquity. 
And by way of prescribing a 200 ft protective zone under section 22 
of the 1975 Act and section 11 of the 1985 Ordinance which require 
that no development plan or scheme or new construction shall be 
undertaken or executed within the distance of two hundred feet 
(200 ft.) of a protected moveable “antiquity” and “special 
premises” without the approval, in case of the former, of the 
Director General, and in relation to the later, of the Government of 
the Punjab. It may be relevant to mention here that the above two 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
102
 
provisions are inconsonance with Article 103 of the “Operational 
Guidelines for implementation of World Heritage Convention”, 
issued by UNESCO, (of which convention Pakistan is a signatory), 
which Article prescribes adequate buffer zone surrounding the 
monuments, to give an added layer of protection to the 
monuments, including its immediate setting, important view, and its 
other important attributes. The answer as to why our laws, have 
prescribed a limit of 200ft. for the preventive/ protective/buffer 
zone, seems to lie in the scientific fact, as recorded and illustrated 
by “CALTRON” (annexure “D” to CMA 196/2016), that it is at this 
distance of 61m (200 ft) that the extenuation of PPV (Peak Particle 
Velocity)/vibration is reduced to an almost imperceptible level.  
64. 
 
In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the firm 
view that in order to convert the statutory “No” as contained in the 
above two provisions, into a “Yes”, the authorities concerned ought 
to have undertaken a scrutiny of the highest order, and the 
proposal ought to have undergone minute and thorough screening 
and due diligence, after collecting, and on the basis of, accurate 
relevant 
scientific 
data. 
In 
deciding 
the 
request 
for 
permissions/NOCs 
for 
construction 
OLMT 
project 
within 
the 
protective/buffer zone, the statutory intent of preserving and 
protecting the monuments, their views, attributes and character, 
should have been of the foremost and overwhelming importance, 
and the authorities ought to have satisfied themselves that the 
option of avoiding intrusion into the protective zone have been fully 
explored by the proponent, and the intervention was truly found to 
be really inevitable, and in the event of proven inevitability of the 
proposed intrusion, ought have satisfied themselves, on the basis of 
precise and accurate calculations, assessment, and evaluations of 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
103
 
the vibration induced by the Metro train proposed to be employed, 
and the machinery specified for  construction purposes shall 
propagate safe level of vibration. Similarly, the measurements and 
calculations of distances between the various points at which the 
vibration was/is to generate and transmitted and upto the point 
where they were to hit the monuments, as detailed hereinbefore, 
ought to have been carried out with care and precision, and 
preferably the soil layers contiguous to the monuments should also 
have been tested and analyzed. The evaluation and analysis of the 
transit induced vibration also ought to have been based on 
detailed 
information 
of 
the 
relevant 
specification 
and 
configuration, but all of the above is lacking in the present case. 
65. 
 
As noted above, many of the monuments are not just 
unique and magnificent and reflective of our glorious past carrying 
immense cultural, social and historical significance, and aesthetic 
charm and artistic beauty. The monuments being many hundred 
years old, admittedly bears signs of abuse and neglect, and suffers 
from vagaries of weather. Some of these have already developed 
cracks, however, unfortunately neither the endurance level of these 
monuments been evaluated/ determined nor is the susceptibility of 
their foundations and footings been measured. These foundations 
and footings have also not been taken into account while 
calculating the distance between the track and the monuments. 
The heritage impact assessment as discussed and analyzed above, 
clearly indicates and specifies various adverse impact the project 
will have on the monuments.  
66. 
 
The statutory intent of protecting and preserving 
heritage and avoiding any harm thereto is so strong and 
overwhelming that potential harm to the heritage cannot be taken 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
104
 
lightly even where the harm is outweighed by the advantages of 
the proposed development. The authorities must give highest 
priority to the objective of law by preserving or enhancing the 
character and appearance of the heritage, and in case the 
proposed development militates against the statutory objective, 
the proposal will prevail only in exceptional cases. 
67. 
 
It is an admitted position that originally the track of 
OLMT in front of Lakshmi building and Chauburji as planned by MV 
Asia, was to be laid underground however in order to cut down the 
cost of the project, the length of the underground section of the 
project was reduced and thus in front of these two monuments also 
the track is now being built on elevated viaduct instead, although 
in respect of Chauburji the option of diverting the alignment to a 
safe distance is admittedly available. 
68. 
 
It may be relevant to mention here that in terms of 
Article 4 of “the Convention for protection, conservation, 
presentation and transmission to the future generations of the 
cultural 
and 
natural 
heritage” 
adopted 
by 
the 
General  
Conference of the United Nations Educational, Scientific and 
Cultural Organization (UNESCO), to which convention Pakistan is a 
signatory, we are obliged to ensure the “identification, protection, 
conservation, presentation and transmission to future generations of 
the cultural and natural heritage”, and to do all that we can 
towards the said end to the utmost of our own resources and where 
appropriate with any international assistance and cooperation, in 
particular, financial, artistic, scientific and technical which we may 
be able to obtain. Pakistan being a signatory to the above 
convention, and a respectable and worthy member of the comity 
of nations, is obliged to comply therewith, and to fulfil its obligation 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
105
 
thereunder, more so for the reason that this country has also 
benefited from the technical assistance and financial help 
provided by UNESCO, in respect of Shalimar Garden and the 
Lahore Fort inscribed on the world heritage list in 1981, and has as 
per a UNESCO report, received through them a financial assistance 
of US $ 121,000, out of which US $ 44,000, was for Lahore Fort and 
the balance was for the Shalamar Gardens.  
69. 
 
During its 40th Session held in July 2016 the World 
Heritage Committee of UNESCO adopted a resolution expressing its 
serious concern about the construction of the OLMT project and 
requested the State Party (the Government of Punjab) to prepare a 
visual impact study of the Project to be presented to the World 
Heritage Centre and the Advisory Bodies before pursuing the works 
of the OLMT associated with the Shalamar Gardens, and also 
requested them to submit to the World Heritage Centre, in 
conformity with paragraph 172 of the Operational Guidelines, 
Technical details, including Heritage Impact Assessment (HIA), for all 
the proposed projects that may have an impact on the outstanding 
universal value (OUV) of the property (Shalamar Gardens) prior to 
their approval, for review by the advisory bodies. The Committee 
also requested the State Party to invite ICOMOS Reactive 
Monitoring Mission to the property at its earliest convenience to 
examine the OLMT and to discuss the same with the relevant 
Government authorities and to review the management and 
protection arrangements of the property. A further request was 
made to submit to the World Heritage Centre by 1st February 2017 
an up-to-dated report on the state of conservation of the property 
and the implementation of the various recommendations/proposals 
made by the Committee as mentioned in the resolution for 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
106
 
examination of the World Heritage Committee at its 41st Session in 
2017 with a view to consider whether there is a certain or potential 
danger to the outstanding universal value of the property.  
70. 
 
The latest report of the UNESCO World Heritage Centre 
indicates that the conservation issues regarding Shalamar Gardens 
was presented to the Heritage Committee this year, and that 
despite efforts made by the World Heritage Centre and ICOMOS, 
the Government of Punjab has not invited Reactive Monitoring 
Mission as requested by the Committee at its last session (decision 
40 COM 7B.43), instead the Government, on 29th March, 2017, 
informed the World Heritage Centre that the Mission will be invited 
only after the decision of the present case.  
71 
 
The report also notes that no visual impact study or 
detailed report on the progress made regarding the enlargement 
of the buffer-zone, has been submitted to the World Heritage 
Centre, and that the report submitted by the Government discloses 
very little information about OLMT Project. It is further noted that the 
full potential impact of the project on the OUV of the Shalamar 
Gardens goes beyond the potential impact of vibration. If is further 
stated that the visual impact assessment has not been completed, 
and that since no comprehensive heritage impact assessment (HIA) 
in line with ICOMOS Guidelines has been carried out to address, not 
only the issue of vibration, but also the visual and noise impacts, the 
full impact of OLMT Project is yet to be formally defined and that 
HIA submitted by the Government in 2016 was not in line with the 
internationally recommended standards and has thus failed to 
address the full range of impact of the Project. The report also 
claims that the construction that has continued on both sides of the 
Shalamar Gardens is already impacting on the setting and integrity 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
107
 
of the Gardens and if the Project is allowed to be completed along 
the Gardens it will irreversibly compromise the authenticity and 
integrity of the property, thereby potentially threatening its OUV. The 
Committee through its decision adopted in its 41st Session noted 
that the Reactive Monitoring mission will be invited immediately 
after the decision of this Court is announced and requested to 
urgently complete and share with the World Heritage Centre the 
Visual Impact Study as decided by the World Heritage Committee 
at its 40th session as soon as possible, and at the latest on 1st  
December 2017; and to invite a joint World Heritage Centre/ 
ICOMOS Reactive Monitoring Mission to the property immediately 
after the announcement of the decision of this Court, to examine 
the Orange Line Metro Train Project and to discuss the same with 
the 
relevant 
Government 
authorities 
and 
to 
review 
the 
management and protection arrangements of the property and 
that highest priority must be given to considering how the Shalamar 
Gardens and their spiritual associations can be sustained alongside 
any necessary measures to satisfy the needs of a growing city, by 
setting out the precise and detailed nature of the potential impacts 
of the Orange Line Metro project on the OUV of the property, and 
whether and how mitigation measures can be undertaken. 
72. 
 
It is now well established that right to life as envisaged 
by Article 9 of the Constitution includes all those aspects of life 
which go to make a man’s life meaningful, complete and worth 
living. In the case of Employees of Pakistan Law Commission vs. 
Ministry of Works (1994 SCMR 1548), it has been laid down that 
Article 9 of the Constitution which guarantees life and liberty 
according to law, is not to be construed in a restrictive manner. Life 
has larger concept which include the right of enjoyment of life, 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
108
 
maintaining adequate level of living for full enjoyment of freedom 
and rights.  
73. 
 
In the case of Siddharam Satingappa Mhetre vs. State 
of Maharastra and others (2011 SCC 694), Indian Supreme Court 
held that the protection against arbitrary privation of ‘life’ no longer 
means mere protection from death, or physical injury, but also an 
invasion of the right to ‘live’ with human dignity, and would include 
all those aspects of life which would go to make a man’s life 
meaningful and worth living, such as his tradition, culture and 
heritage.  
74. 
 
In the case of P. Rathinam/Nagbhusan Patnaik vs. 
Union of India and another (AIR 1994 Supreme Court 1844), It was 
held that word ‘life’ in Article 21 means right to live with human 
dignity and the same not merely connote continued drudgery. It 
takes within its fold, ‘some of the finer graces of human civilization, 
which makes life worth living’ and that the expanded concept of 
life would mean the ‘tradition, culture and heritage’ of the 
concerned person. 
75. 
 
In the case of Ramsharan Autyanuprasi & Anr v. Union 
of India  (1988 SCR Supl. (3) 870; AIR 1989 Supreme Court 549), it was 
held that it is true that life in its expanded horizons today includes all 
that give meaning to a man’s life including his tradition, culture and 
heritage and protection of that heritage in its full measure would 
certainly come within the encompass of an expanded concept of 
Article 21 of the Constitution. 
76. 
 
In the present case the relevant authorities have clearly 
failed to take into account the various crucial relevant aspects of 
the case, and have failed in their duty to enforce the mandate of 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
109
 
law as discussed above, and have ignored the heritage interest 
secured by law. 
77. 
 
In the circumstances, we would dispose of the present 
appeals by directing the DG Archaeology, Government of Punjab 
to ensure that the heritage impact assessment in the matter be 
carried out afresh keeping in view the above discussion, preferably 
with the assistance of UNESCO, who seems ready and willing, rather 
keen to provide such assistance, 
if need be felt, some 
organization/body having expertise, experience and credibility like 
“English Heritage” be also associated with the exercise. The exercise 
be commenced at the earliest and preferably within 15 days from 
today, and fullest endeavour be made that the same be 
concluded expeditiously and preferably within one month from its 
commencement, 
and 
within 
15 
days 
thereafter 
the 
DG 
Archaeology and the Government of Punjab shall decide the 
request for the NOCs in the light of the report/findings of the fresh 
heritage impact assessment, with an endeavour to find practicable 
and viable solutions of the problems and issues that may be pointed 
out in the said assessment so that the project may be completed as 
early as possible.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE 
 
JUDGE  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
110
 
Announced in open Court on _______________ 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge. 
‘APPROVED FOR REPORTING’ 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
111
 
ORDER OF THE COURT 
 
 
 
With majority of 4 against 1, Maqbool Baqar, J, 
dissenting, we endorse and approve the NOCs/permission letters 
issued by the competent authorities and the recommendations of 
experts relating to execution, mitigation and remedial measures 
required to be adopted by the executing agency and allow the 
Project to proceed subject to the following conditions and directions:- 
i) 
The appellant shall make all necessary arrangements to 
ensure that the monuments remain stable and undamaged 
in all respects during the execution of the Project as 
specified in the HIA and Study of Control of Vibration, 
Noise and Foundation; 
 
ii) 
Vibration monitoring shall be undertaken as a part of the 
monitoring plan using the crack measure devices such as 
Avongard Standard Tell-Tale throughout the construction 
period and for an additional period of 10 weeks from the 
date of commencement of commercial operation of the 
train or such further time as may be directed by the 
Director General, Archaeology. In case, it is found that 
vibration levels at any stage of the construction or 
operation are exceeding safe limits, construction work / 
operation shall immediately be discontinued and remedial 
action shall be taken to ensure that such levels are brought 
down to acceptable limits. Such actions may inter alia 
include use of one piece of equipment at a time, during the 
construction phase, adjustment of train speed, addition of 
buffers and such other remedial and mitigating measures 
as may be recommended by the experts; 
 
iii) 
Technical experts shall be present at the sites during the 
construction phase in the vicinity of the antiquities and 
special premises with all necessary equipment for 
monitoring vibration levels. In case, vibration levels exceed 
the acceptable limits, work shall immediately be stopped, 
remedial measures taken to the satisfaction of experts and 
further work shall not commence unless written clearance 
for resumption of work is given by the experts; 
 
iv) 
An independent and experienced Conservation Engineer 
shall be appointed to monitor the Project, both during the 
construction and operation phases. He shall submit 
monthly reports to the Advisory Committee which shall 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
112
 
make such further recommendations to the Director 
General, Archaeology as may be required to ensure that 
the Project as a whole is meeting all technical 
requirements meant to preserve, protect and conserve the 
antiquities or protected premises; 
 
v) 
On completion of the project, the train shall be operated on 
experimental basis for at least 2 weeks on the entire length 
of the route and the vibration levels shall be monitored to 
ensure that the same are within the acceptable limits. 
Commercial operation shall not commence unless written 
clearance is given by the experts confirming that vibration 
levels have consistently been found to be within 
acceptable limits; 
 
vi) 
The speed of the Train shall be reduced while passing 
near the monuments as recommended by the Directorate 
General of Archaeology from time to time on the basis of 
data made available to it; 
 
vii) 
State of the art vibration measuring equipments shall 
permanently be installed at suitable places in and around 
the antiquities and special premises to monitor levels of 
vibration created by operation of the train. Records of the 
same shall be maintained and regularly checked by a 
responsible officer deputed to do so; 
 
viii) 
Special teams consisting of qualified experts will be set up 
which will periodically inspect all antiquities and special 
premises to detect any damage or deterioration at the 
sites. Proper records and logbooks shall be maintained for 
this purpose; 
 
ix) 
Any damage or deterioration shall be reported to the 
Director General, Archaeology in writing who shall take 
remedial steps necessary to ensure safety of the buildings 
and structures; 
 
x) 
Recommendations of the Advisory Committee (already set 
up) shall be placed before the Directorate General of 
Archaeology, who shall take necessary steps to ensure 
that the same are complied with in letter and spirit by all 
concerned agencies, contractors, sub-contractors and 
operators; 
 
xi) 
Where excavation is necessary it shall be carried out in a 
way that it would not affect any structure or foundation of 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
113
 
the antiquities or special premises. Where necessary 
special arrangements shall be made to stabilize and 
strengthen the structure of the antiquities and special 
premises. All necessary safety arrangements shall be 
made in accordance with the best engineering expertise 
during excavation, construction and execution phases of 
the Project; 
 
xii) 
The executing agency shall install accelerometers, velocity 
transducers, noise detectors and vibration measuring 
equipment near the antiquities and special premises. The 
appellant shall ensure implementation of additional 
mitigation and remedial measures as mentioned in 
vibration analysis report by NESPAK, Heritage Impact 
Assessment (HIA) as well as in the reports submitted by 
Dr. Uppal and Dr. Rogers; 
 
xiii) 
Excavation would be carried out in a way that would not 
affect any of the exposed or buried structure of the Special 
Premises; 
 
xiv) 
In case of any adverse impact to the antiquities or special 
premises during excavation, construction or execution, the 
appellant and all other related agencies shall immediately 
and forthwith stop and discontinue further work, take all 
possible actions to protect and conserve the antiquities 
and special premises and in this regard, involve such 
experts and consultants as may be necessary to ensure 
that the causes and effects of the adverse impact are 
effectively removed; 
 
xv) 
A dedicated hotline shall be set up, telephone numbers 
whereof shall be prominently displayed in public areas 
around all antiquities and special premises for reporting 
damage or deterioration observed by members of the 
public or tourists; 
 
xvi) 
In case, any information/report is received by the Director 
General, Archaeology the same shall be investigated 
within 7 days and after receiving recommendations (if any) 
from experts repair/ renovation work shall be commenced 
within 30 days; 
 
xvii) 
No 
building 
material 
or 
equipment 
shall 
be 
stored/stockpiled within protected area of the monuments; 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
114
 
xviii) 
No change shall be made in the alignment of the track 
which brings any part of it nearer to the monuments than 
the distances set out hereinabove; 
 
xix) 
Dust pollution during construction shall be controlled 
through extensive sprinkling of water on regular basis and 
taking such other steps including but not limited to covering 
the monuments with protective sheets in order to avoid any 
damage from dust; 
 
xx) 
The design of the viaduct and nearby stations in terms of 
colour and designing shall be in harmony with the setting 
and appearance of the monuments; 
 
xxi) 
The Hydraulic Tank of Shalamar Garden shall be restored, 
as far as possible, to its original position and the 
surrounding area will be converted into a green area; 
 
xxii) 
Structures on the southern side of the Shalamar Garden 
shall be camouflaged through construction of a wall in 
consultation with the Directorate General of Archaeology. 
All practicable efforts shall be made to create a buffer Zone 
around Shalamar Garden as per proposal already pending 
in the Directorate General of Archaeology and other 
competent forums; 
 
xxiii) 
The decorative motifs of Shalamar Garden would be 
replicated on the train station near the Shalamar Garden to 
create harmony with the Garden; 
 
xxiv) 
The tile mosaic motifs of the Gulabi Bagh Gateway would 
be replicated on the nearby station of the Gateway to 
create harmony with the historic Gateway; 
 
xxv) 
The area around the Chauburji Gateway would be properly 
attended and developed into a greenbelt; 
 
xxvi) 
The decorative motifs of the Chauburji Gateway would be 
replicated on the nearby station of the Chauburji Gateway 
to create a harmony with the historic Gateway; 
 
xxvii) The area around the Zaib-un-Nisa’s Tomb would be 
properly attended and developed; 
 
xxviii) The decorative motifs of the Zaib-un-Nisa’s Tomb would be 
replicated on the nearby station of the Zaib-un-Nisa’s 
Tomb to create harmony with the historic;  
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
115
 
xxix) 
The Respondents shall in consultation with UNESCO and 
other international agencies prepare phase-wise plan to 
control and monitor urban encroachments and the process 
of creating buffer zone around the Shalamar garden; 
 
xxx) 
All future projects which directly, indirectly and incidentally 
involve antiquities or heritage sites shall in the first 
instance be widely publicized through print and electronic 
media at least 6 months prior to proposed date of 
commencement of the project and public hearings shall be 
conducted to hear objections, if any against such project; 
and 
 
xxxi) 
For all future projects, NOCs, licences, approvals and 
permissions as required by law shall be obtained before 
work on the project site is commenced. 
 
2. 
 In addition to the above, we direct the Government of 
Punjab within a period of 30 days from the date of this judgment to 
take the following steps:- 
e) Set up an Antiquity and Special Premises Fund with the sum 
of Rupees One Hundred Million which shall be dedicated to 
monitoring, renovation and reconstruction work of 11 protected 
and special premises mentioned hereinabove. It shall be a 
revolving fund and shall be replenished on yearly basis. It shall 
be utilized firstly for the maintenance, preservation, restoration 
and renovation work of the protected and Special Premises, 
subject matter of this lis and thereafter on other Antiquities and 
Special Premises situated in Lahore as may be recommended 
by the special Committee of Experts constituted under this 
Judgment; 
 
f) A broad based Special Committee of Experts consisting of 
Director General, Archeology Department; a Professor of the 
Department of Archeology, University of the Punjab; Head of 
Department 
of 
Structural 
Engineering, 
University 
of 
Engineering and Technology, Lahore; a Senior Professor 
nominated by the Chairman of Board of Directors of National 
College of Arts; chaired by a retired Judge of this Court 
nominated by the Chief Justice of Pakistan shall be notified 
which shall oversee implementation of the judgment of this 
Court and the directions issued herein. This Committee shall 
also make such further recommendations to the Chief Minister 
Punjab to undertake such measures as may be necessary to 
Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project  
116
 
implement and enforce the directions and recommendations 
made in this judgment. The tenure of the Committee shall be 
one year from the date of its notification; 
 
g) The Government of Punjab shall retain the services of at least 
three Experts having expertise in the field of archeology and 
renovation, preservation and maintenance of antiquities and 
special premises. One of the experts shall be a person having 
expertise in structural engineering. All three experts will work 
as a Technical Committee with tenure of one year. The 
Technical Committee shall report to advise and assist the 
aforesaid Special Committee of Experts. The Committee shall, 
if required and with the approval of Director General, 
Archeology retain services of such other experts as it may 
consider necessary to undertake its work more effectively 
regarding the steps required to be taken to monitor the 
protected and Special Premises all over Lahore and suggest 
remedial measures that may be necessary to ensure the 
safety of all protected and special premises in Lahore; and 
 
h) We also emphasize the fact that the present condition of the 
protected and special premises calls for major preservation, 
renovation, reconstruction and repair work. The Government 
of Punjab shall take immediate steps and we have been 
assured by learned Advocate General, Punjab that such steps 
shall immediately be taken to start repair and renovation work 
for which the requisite funds will be made available within thirty 
days from the date of this judgment.  
3. 
 In view of the foregoing discussion, the Impugned 
Judgment of the Lahore High Court is set aside and the instant 
appeals are allowed in terms noted above. Civil Petition No.3101-L 
of 2016 is unanimously dismissed and Leave to Appeal is refused.   
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
 
Judge  
 
 
Judge 
 
APPROVED FOR REPORTING 
Announced in Open Court  
On 08.12.2017. 
 
Judge