BRIEF FACTS
This ruling is in respect of the Petitioners Notice of Motion dated 22nd October, 2025 for the following orders, namely:-
1. Spent.
2. Spent.
3. This Honorable court be pleased to issue an order halting or suspending the on-going construction works under the Affordable Housing Program on the Applicant's parcel pending the hearing and determination of this suit. The costs of this application be provided for.
4. This Honourable Court do make such further or other orders as may be just and expedient in the circumstances.
The application is based on grounds that the applicant is the registered proprietor of approximately 200 acres of land parcel number 4731/1 purchased from Thuo Commercial Agencies Limited in 2016 and has a valid title deed issued to him by the Government. The applicant was not aware of the existence of suit no 340 of 2015 in the Environment and Land Court Nakuru, where the Kenya Airports Authority claims ownership of the land. The applicant has discovered that the Government of Kenya has commenced massive construction on the suit property and therefore interfering with the applicant’s possession and that he is likely to suffer massive losses and damages if the conservatory order is not granted. The balance of convenience tilts towards the grant of the conservatory orders as the applicant stands to lose his property permanently.
The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by Stephen Muturi Ngugi, the Applicant’s director sworn on 22nd October, 2025. He stated that the Applicant purchased the parcel of land known as LR NO 4731/1 from the 2nd interested party. He further stated that the Applicant was thereafter registered as the owner on 22nd June, 2018 thus became the absolute proprietor of the land. He stated that upon acquiring the same, the Applicant subdivided the suit parcel after which it later learnt that there was a pending suit before the Nakuru Court being ELC No. 340 of 2015 where the Applicant was the 8th Defendant. He further stated that the 1st interested party in the case claims ownership of the suit land arguing that the land was acquired via a disputed compulsory acquisition process. He added that the matter was still pending hearing and determination. He went on to state that the Applicant discovered that the 1st to 5th Respondent had begun construction of Affordable Housing Project on the suit land without its knowledge. He added that the Applicant has never received any notice of compulsory acquisition, gazette notice or notification of intended public use from the National Land Commission or any other government entity. He stated that the Respondents’ entry and occupation of the suit property was unlawful and amounted to deprivation of property. He further stated that the ongoing construction was extensive involving excavation which if not restrained, it will alter the nature of the land and render enforcement of any future decree impossible. He stated that unless the court intervenes urgently, the Respondents will continue with the construction and possibly sell or transfer the housing units to members of the public. He added that this would defeat the Applicant’s constitutional rights.
Response
The 5th Respondent in opposition filed its grounds of opposition dated 10th November, 2025 on the following grounds:
1) The Application has not met the threshold for grant of injunction orders as established in the locus classicus case of Giella V Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358.
2) The Applicant has not established that he has ownership rights over LR No 4731/1 (LR Nos. 4731/40 to 51) since the ownership is pending determination in Nakuru ELC Petition No 340 of 2015; Kenya Airports Authority V Nakuru Teachers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd & Others.
3) The Applicant has not established that he will suffer any irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by an award of damages.
4) That the public interest in proceeding with the Affordable Housing construction project outweighs the alleged private interest over the disputed land.
5) Accordingly, the present application is misconceived, fatally defective, incompetent, bad in law, mischievous, frivolous, vexatious and Is otherwise an abuse of the Court process.
The 1st Respondent through its Principal Secretary CHARLES M. HINGA CBS filed its replying affidavit sworn on 20th November, 2025. He averred that the application was misconceived and an abuse of the court process. He further averred that the Petitioner has not established a prima facie case to warrant issuance of the orders. He averred that the suit land LR 4731/1 was illegally obtained thus could not enjoy the constitution’s protection. He also averred that the suit land had been compulsorily acquired on 28th January, 1983 through gazette Notice 353 for public use. He added that the acquisition was on behalf of the 1st interested party. He went on to aver that on 7th December, 1982 vide a letter Ref No. VAL 743/3 the Commissioner of Lands forwarded to the Minister of Land and Settlement a proposal to acquire parts of LR No. 9363/3, 4731/2/6282/1/11373, 6282/2 and 4731/1. He averred that at the time the gazette and inquiry notices were copied to the suit owners whereby WAKA HOLDINGS LTD were the registered owners at the time. He went on to aver that on 9th January, 1986, the Commissioner of Lands communicated to the Director of Aerodromes and informed him that the inquiry had been completed and offers for compensation were made to the land owners. He averred that at the time, WAKA HOLDINGS LTD had already transferred the suit land to the 2nd interested party. He averred that on 5th November, 1985, the Commissioner of Lands wrote to the 2nd interested party informing them that the suit land had already been compulsorily acquired and they were invited to submit their claim. He went on to aver that the Commissioner issued the 2nd interested party with letters of award on 15th December, 1986 for Kshs. 1,931,632. He added that an allotment letter was issued to the 1st interested party for LR 23166. He added that the suit land remained non-existent hence the Petitioner has no locus to institute the suit. He urged the court to dismiss the application for lack of merit.
The 2nd interested party also filed its replying affidavit sworn on 21st November, 2025 by Maina Ndua, one of its directors. He averred that there was a pending suit Nakuru ELC Petition No 340 of 2015; Kenya Airports Authority V Nakuru Teachers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd & Others. He further averred that it was the registered proprietor of the suit property and added that the alleged compulsory acquisition of the suit parcel by the 1st Respondent was never established. He added that this fact in issue was pending before the Nakuru ELC No. 340 of 2015. He averred that there was ongoing construction on the suit parcel which if not restrained, ELC No. 340 of 2015 and the Petition herein will be rendered nugatory.
The 1st interested party replied through the affidavit of Fredrick Ojunga, her internal surveyor who states that he is not privy to any construction on the parcel of land in dispute. That the 1st interested party is not opposed to the grant of the orders sought in the application but blows hot and cold by stating that the application is devoid of merit and should not be allowed.
Submissions
Counsel for the Applicant filed his submissions dated 1st December, 2025 where he identified four issues for determination. The first issue was whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable prima facie case with a likelihood of success. He relied on the case of Mrao vs. First American Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 Others (2003) KLR 125 and submits that the Applicant is the registered proprietor of LR No. 4731/1 and its subdivisions, having lawfully purchased the land for value from the 2nd interested party in 2016 and obtained valid titles. He submits that the Respondent admits to not having title and that the title is held by the by the 1st interested party who does not oppose the application. He further relied on the Supreme Court case in Mitu Bell Welfare Society –v- Kenya Airports Authority & 2 Others, SC Petition No. 3 of 2018 and submits that there was no evidence of acquisition of title by the Respondents and therefore, the petition had a high likelihood of success.
The second issue was whether the grant or denial of the conservatory relief will cause prejudice. He submits that the ongoing construction, excavation and erection of permanent structures exposes the Applicant to immediate prejudice through loss of possession, alteration of land character and potential third-party claims from non-suspecting member of the public who are likely to purchase the houses. He further submits that such prejudice would render the Petition ineffective and undermine this Honourable Court’s ability to grant meaningful final relief. He further submits that the 2nd Respondent and 2nd Interested Party admitted that development works are ongoing on the suit property through the 4th and 5th Respondents thus strengthening the Applicant’s case on prejudice. He submits that granting the conservatory orders will enhance and safeguard the constitutional values underlying Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
The third issue was whether if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. While submitting in the affirmative, counsel relied on the case of Stanley Kang’ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Keter & 5 Others, Civil Application No. 31 of 2012 [2013] eKLR. It was his submission that the Respondents have already entered the Applicant’s land, undertaken excavation, laid foundations and commenced construction. He adds that if construction is allowed to proceed, the land will be transformed beyond restoration, third-party interests may attach, and the Court will be unable to meaningfully enforce any final orders arising from the Petition.
The final issue was whether the public interest will be served or prejudiced by a decision to exercise discretion to grant or deny a conservatory order. He submits that it is a matter of Public Notoriety that the houses being developed under the affordable housing program, are to be sold to unsuspecting members of the Public. He added that the funds being utilized for the project was public funds. Counsel argues that it was therefore imperative that the conservatory orders be issued to avoid utilization of public funds in a development that is carried out on private land without proper process of acquisition of land. It was his submission that granting conservatory orders therefore serves the public interest.
In conclusion, counsel urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of granting the conservatory orders sought, so as to preserve the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the Petition.
Counsel for the 3rd Respondent on the other hand filed her submissions dated 28th November, 2025 where she identified three issues for determination. The first issue was whether the Applicant had the locus standi to institute this suit. Counsel submits in the negative and argues that the suit land was already compulsorily acquired and payment made in the year 1986. She further submits that vesting orders were in place thus the suit land ceased to be private property. It was her submission that the 2nd interested party despite being aware of the developments, chose to sell the suit land to the Applicant. She cited the Supreme Court case in Petition No. 8 (E010) of 2021 and submits that the Applicant was not a bonafide purchaser. She further submits that the suit land was amalgamated with others to form LR 23166 hence the suit land was non-existent. He relied on the case of Njau & 5 Others V City Council of Nairobi [1983] KECA 56 (KLR).
The second issue was whether the application has met the required threshold to warrant the granting of the orders sought. Counsel submits in the negative and relied on the case of Milimani ELC No. 719 of 2017 Wilfred Waweru & Another V Kenya Women Microfinance Ltd. She submits that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Respondents to the extent that the government will suffer irreparable damages if the affordable housing project is halted. She added that the suit land was public utility and that the Applicant failed to attach any PDP to show that the suit land had been legally alienated as private land before the alleged title was issued to them.
Analysis and Determination
Rule 23 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, provides for the court’s jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders in a pending Constitutional Petition as follows;- “Despite any provision to the contrary, a judge before whom a petition under rule 4 is presented shall hear and determine an application for conservatory or interim orders.”
Principles for grant of conservatory orders in Constitutional Petitions are now well settled. It is incumbent on the Applicant to demonstrate a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and also that unless the conservatory orders are granted there is real danger that they will suffer prejudice as a result of violation of threatened violation of the Constitution, even in the context of public law and public interest.
The threshold for grant of conservatory orders were laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gatirau Peter Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR as follows;
“- Conservatory orders bear a more decided public – law connotation; for these are orders to facilitate ordered functioning within public agencies, as well as to uphold the adjudicatory authority of the court, in the public interest. Conservatory orders, therefore, are not, unlike interlocutory injunctions, linked to such private – party issues as “the prospects of irreparable harm” occurring during the pendency of a case: or high probability of success in the applicant’s case for orders of stay. Conservatory orders, consequently should be granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind the public interest, the Constitutional values, and the proportionate magnitudes, and priority levels attributable to the relevant causes.”
The upshot of the above therefore is that, a party seeking conservatory orders must demonstrate that they have a merited case with a likelihood of success in the context of the public interest attaching to the dispute viewed against Constitutional values and the import of the orders sought. There must be a clear demonstration of a prima facie case that is arguable and not frivolous. In the case of the Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School v. City County Director of Education & 2 others [2015] eKLR, the court observed as follows;
“26.it is my view not enough to merely establish a prima facie case and show that it is potentially arguable. Potential arguability is not enough to justify a conservatory order but rather there must also be evident a likelihood of success. The prima facie case ought to be beyond a speculative basis….”
It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the 1st interested parties have title to the property in dispute and that there is a pending case before this court in Nakuru ELC No 340 of 2015; Kenya Airports Authority V Nakuru Teachers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd & Others. In the said suit, the issue of the compulsory acquisition which is a subject in the present petition is pending determination. Moreover, this court visited the site and saw the construction of affordable houses on land either meant for the construction of an airport or meant for private use by the alleged owners. With the above facts and the fact that the petitioner has title to the property, though subject to establishing its roots, the petitioner has established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. The petitioner has raised an issue of serious public interest as to whether the government can construct affordable houses on private land or on land subject to a dispute in the environment and Land Court. I do agree with the petitioner that if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. Ultimately, I do issue an order halting or suspending the on-going construction works under the Affordable Housing Program on the parcel of land Known as LR NO 4731/1 pending the hearing and determination of this petition. Costs of the application in the cause.
This ruling is in respect of the Petitioners Notice of Motion dated 22nd October, 2025 for the following orders, namely:-
1. Spent.
2. Spent.
3. This Honorable court be pleased to issue an order halting or suspending the on-going construction works under the Affordable Housing Program on the Applicant's parcel pending the hearing and determination of this suit. The costs of this application be provided for.
4. This Honourable Court do make such further or other orders as may be just and expedient in the circumstances.
The application is based on grounds that the applicant is the registered proprietor of approximately 200 acres of land parcel number 4731/1 purchased from Thuo Commercial Agencies Limited in 2016 and has a valid title deed issued to him by the Government. The applicant was not aware of the existence of suit no 340 of 2015 in the Environment and Land Court Nakuru, where the Kenya Airports Authority claims ownership of the land. The applicant has discovered that the Government of Kenya has commenced massive construction on the suit property and therefore interfering with the applicant’s possession and that he is likely to suffer massive losses and damages if the conservatory order is not granted. The balance of convenience tilts towards the grant of the conservatory orders as the applicant stands to lose his property permanently.
The application is supported by the affidavit sworn by Stephen Muturi Ngugi, the Applicant’s director sworn on 22nd October, 2025. He stated that the Applicant purchased the parcel of land known as LR NO 4731/1 from the 2nd interested party. He further stated that the Applicant was thereafter registered as the owner on 22nd June, 2018 thus became the absolute proprietor of the land. He stated that upon acquiring the same, the Applicant subdivided the suit parcel after which it later learnt that there was a pending suit before the Nakuru Court being ELC No. 340 of 2015 where the Applicant was the 8th Defendant. He further stated that the 1st interested party in the case claims ownership of the suit land arguing that the land was acquired via a disputed compulsory acquisition process. He added that the matter was still pending hearing and determination. He went on to state that the Applicant discovered that the 1st to 5th Respondent had begun construction of Affordable Housing Project on the suit land without its knowledge. He added that the Applicant has never received any notice of compulsory acquisition, gazette notice or notification of intended public use from the National Land Commission or any other government entity. He stated that the Respondents’ entry and occupation of the suit property was unlawful and amounted to deprivation of property. He further stated that the ongoing construction was extensive involving excavation which if not restrained, it will alter the nature of the land and render enforcement of any future decree impossible. He stated that unless the court intervenes urgently, the Respondents will continue with the construction and possibly sell or transfer the housing units to members of the public. He added that this would defeat the Applicant’s constitutional rights.
Response
The 5th Respondent in opposition filed its grounds of opposition dated 10th November, 2025 on the following grounds:
1) The Application has not met the threshold for grant of injunction orders as established in the locus classicus case of Giella V Cassman Brown & Co. Ltd [1973] EA 358.
2) The Applicant has not established that he has ownership rights over LR No 4731/1 (LR Nos. 4731/40 to 51) since the ownership is pending determination in Nakuru ELC Petition No 340 of 2015; Kenya Airports Authority V Nakuru Teachers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd & Others.
3) The Applicant has not established that he will suffer any irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by an award of damages.
4) That the public interest in proceeding with the Affordable Housing construction project outweighs the alleged private interest over the disputed land.
5) Accordingly, the present application is misconceived, fatally defective, incompetent, bad in law, mischievous, frivolous, vexatious and Is otherwise an abuse of the Court process.
The 1st Respondent through its Principal Secretary CHARLES M. HINGA CBS filed its replying affidavit sworn on 20th November, 2025. He averred that the application was misconceived and an abuse of the court process. He further averred that the Petitioner has not established a prima facie case to warrant issuance of the orders. He averred that the suit land LR 4731/1 was illegally obtained thus could not enjoy the constitution’s protection. He also averred that the suit land had been compulsorily acquired on 28th January, 1983 through gazette Notice 353 for public use. He added that the acquisition was on behalf of the 1st interested party. He went on to aver that on 7th December, 1982 vide a letter Ref No. VAL 743/3 the Commissioner of Lands forwarded to the Minister of Land and Settlement a proposal to acquire parts of LR No. 9363/3, 4731/2/6282/1/11373, 6282/2 and 4731/1. He averred that at the time the gazette and inquiry notices were copied to the suit owners whereby WAKA HOLDINGS LTD were the registered owners at the time. He went on to aver that on 9th January, 1986, the Commissioner of Lands communicated to the Director of Aerodromes and informed him that the inquiry had been completed and offers for compensation were made to the land owners. He averred that at the time, WAKA HOLDINGS LTD had already transferred the suit land to the 2nd interested party. He averred that on 5th November, 1985, the Commissioner of Lands wrote to the 2nd interested party informing them that the suit land had already been compulsorily acquired and they were invited to submit their claim. He went on to aver that the Commissioner issued the 2nd interested party with letters of award on 15th December, 1986 for Kshs. 1,931,632. He added that an allotment letter was issued to the 1st interested party for LR 23166. He added that the suit land remained non-existent hence the Petitioner has no locus to institute the suit. He urged the court to dismiss the application for lack of merit.
The 2nd interested party also filed its replying affidavit sworn on 21st November, 2025 by Maina Ndua, one of its directors. He averred that there was a pending suit Nakuru ELC Petition No 340 of 2015; Kenya Airports Authority V Nakuru Teachers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd & Others. He further averred that it was the registered proprietor of the suit property and added that the alleged compulsory acquisition of the suit parcel by the 1st Respondent was never established. He added that this fact in issue was pending before the Nakuru ELC No. 340 of 2015. He averred that there was ongoing construction on the suit parcel which if not restrained, ELC No. 340 of 2015 and the Petition herein will be rendered nugatory.
The 1st interested party replied through the affidavit of Fredrick Ojunga, her internal surveyor who states that he is not privy to any construction on the parcel of land in dispute. That the 1st interested party is not opposed to the grant of the orders sought in the application but blows hot and cold by stating that the application is devoid of merit and should not be allowed.
Submissions
Counsel for the Applicant filed his submissions dated 1st December, 2025 where he identified four issues for determination. The first issue was whether the applicant has demonstrated an arguable prima facie case with a likelihood of success. He relied on the case of Mrao vs. First American Bank of Kenya Limited & 2 Others (2003) KLR 125 and submits that the Applicant is the registered proprietor of LR No. 4731/1 and its subdivisions, having lawfully purchased the land for value from the 2nd interested party in 2016 and obtained valid titles. He submits that the Respondent admits to not having title and that the title is held by the by the 1st interested party who does not oppose the application. He further relied on the Supreme Court case in Mitu Bell Welfare Society –v- Kenya Airports Authority & 2 Others, SC Petition No. 3 of 2018 and submits that there was no evidence of acquisition of title by the Respondents and therefore, the petition had a high likelihood of success.
The second issue was whether the grant or denial of the conservatory relief will cause prejudice. He submits that the ongoing construction, excavation and erection of permanent structures exposes the Applicant to immediate prejudice through loss of possession, alteration of land character and potential third-party claims from non-suspecting member of the public who are likely to purchase the houses. He further submits that such prejudice would render the Petition ineffective and undermine this Honourable Court’s ability to grant meaningful final relief. He further submits that the 2nd Respondent and 2nd Interested Party admitted that development works are ongoing on the suit property through the 4th and 5th Respondents thus strengthening the Applicant’s case on prejudice. He submits that granting the conservatory orders will enhance and safeguard the constitutional values underlying Article 40 of the Constitution of Kenya, 2010.
The third issue was whether if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. While submitting in the affirmative, counsel relied on the case of Stanley Kang’ethe Kinyanjui v Tony Keter & 5 Others, Civil Application No. 31 of 2012 [2013] eKLR. It was his submission that the Respondents have already entered the Applicant’s land, undertaken excavation, laid foundations and commenced construction. He adds that if construction is allowed to proceed, the land will be transformed beyond restoration, third-party interests may attach, and the Court will be unable to meaningfully enforce any final orders arising from the Petition.
The final issue was whether the public interest will be served or prejudiced by a decision to exercise discretion to grant or deny a conservatory order. He submits that it is a matter of Public Notoriety that the houses being developed under the affordable housing program, are to be sold to unsuspecting members of the Public. He added that the funds being utilized for the project was public funds. Counsel argues that it was therefore imperative that the conservatory orders be issued to avoid utilization of public funds in a development that is carried out on private land without proper process of acquisition of land. It was his submission that granting conservatory orders therefore serves the public interest.
In conclusion, counsel urged the court to exercise its discretion in favour of granting the conservatory orders sought, so as to preserve the suit property pending the hearing and determination of the Petition.
Counsel for the 3rd Respondent on the other hand filed her submissions dated 28th November, 2025 where she identified three issues for determination. The first issue was whether the Applicant had the locus standi to institute this suit. Counsel submits in the negative and argues that the suit land was already compulsorily acquired and payment made in the year 1986. She further submits that vesting orders were in place thus the suit land ceased to be private property. It was her submission that the 2nd interested party despite being aware of the developments, chose to sell the suit land to the Applicant. She cited the Supreme Court case in Petition No. 8 (E010) of 2021 and submits that the Applicant was not a bonafide purchaser. She further submits that the suit land was amalgamated with others to form LR 23166 hence the suit land was non-existent. He relied on the case of Njau & 5 Others V City Council of Nairobi [1983] KECA 56 (KLR).
The second issue was whether the application has met the required threshold to warrant the granting of the orders sought. Counsel submits in the negative and relied on the case of Milimani ELC No. 719 of 2017 Wilfred Waweru & Another V Kenya Women Microfinance Ltd. She submits that the balance of convenience tilts in favour of the Respondents to the extent that the government will suffer irreparable damages if the affordable housing project is halted. She added that the suit land was public utility and that the Applicant failed to attach any PDP to show that the suit land had been legally alienated as private land before the alleged title was issued to them.
Analysis and Determination
Rule 23 (1) of the Constitution of Kenya (Protection of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms) Practice and Procedure Rules, 2013, provides for the court’s jurisdiction to grant conservatory orders in a pending Constitutional Petition as follows;- “Despite any provision to the contrary, a judge before whom a petition under rule 4 is presented shall hear and determine an application for conservatory or interim orders.”
Principles for grant of conservatory orders in Constitutional Petitions are now well settled. It is incumbent on the Applicant to demonstrate a prima facie case with a likelihood of success and also that unless the conservatory orders are granted there is real danger that they will suffer prejudice as a result of violation of threatened violation of the Constitution, even in the context of public law and public interest.
The threshold for grant of conservatory orders were laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Gatirau Peter Munya v. Dickson Mwenda Kithinji & 2 Others [2014] eKLR as follows;
“- Conservatory orders bear a more decided public – law connotation; for these are orders to facilitate ordered functioning within public agencies, as well as to uphold the adjudicatory authority of the court, in the public interest. Conservatory orders, therefore, are not, unlike interlocutory injunctions, linked to such private – party issues as “the prospects of irreparable harm” occurring during the pendency of a case: or high probability of success in the applicant’s case for orders of stay. Conservatory orders, consequently should be granted on the inherent merit of a case, bearing in mind the public interest, the Constitutional values, and the proportionate magnitudes, and priority levels attributable to the relevant causes.”
The upshot of the above therefore is that, a party seeking conservatory orders must demonstrate that they have a merited case with a likelihood of success in the context of the public interest attaching to the dispute viewed against Constitutional values and the import of the orders sought. There must be a clear demonstration of a prima facie case that is arguable and not frivolous. In the case of the Board of Management of Uhuru Secondary School v. City County Director of Education & 2 others [2015] eKLR, the court observed as follows;
“26.it is my view not enough to merely establish a prima facie case and show that it is potentially arguable. Potential arguability is not enough to justify a conservatory order but rather there must also be evident a likelihood of success. The prima facie case ought to be beyond a speculative basis….”
It is not in dispute that the petitioner and the 1st interested parties have title to the property in dispute and that there is a pending case before this court in Nakuru ELC No 340 of 2015; Kenya Airports Authority V Nakuru Teachers Housing Co-operative Society Ltd & Others. In the said suit, the issue of the compulsory acquisition which is a subject in the present petition is pending determination. Moreover, this court visited the site and saw the construction of affordable houses on land either meant for the construction of an airport or meant for private use by the alleged owners. With the above facts and the fact that the petitioner has title to the property, though subject to establishing its roots, the petitioner has established a prima facie case with a likelihood of success. The petitioner has raised an issue of serious public interest as to whether the government can construct affordable houses on private land or on land subject to a dispute in the environment and Land Court. I do agree with the petitioner that if an interim conservatory order is not granted, the petition or its substratum will be rendered nugatory. Ultimately, I do issue an order halting or suspending the on-going construction works under the Affordable Housing Program on the parcel of land Known as LR NO 4731/1 pending the hearing and determination of this petition. Costs of the application in the cause.