2009 YLR 1582




Per Mrs. Qaiser Iqbal, J–

Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 4 & 5–

r/w Specific Relief Act (1 of 1877) Ss. 42 & 54–

I have considered the arguments advanced at bar.  Perusal of the sanction of the Government reveals that highest bid was approved by the competent authority in 1982 as indicated in the letter and for execution of lease in schedule of CVA Rules, 1937 subject to payment of premium.  The subsequent event of imposition of ban does not apply to the cases which were already sanctioned for execution of lease subject to the payment of  dues.  The ban imposed in the year, 2001 on the plots sold in auction, lease of plots are with prospective  effect, case in hand does not fall within the purview of the ban imposed.  This factum also finds support from the letter dated 21-12-2002.  The recommendation made by the applicant manifestly shows that the respondent did not violate any law, complied with all the requirement paid all the dues in time per schedule.  The Karachi based Cantonment authority has endorsed in its letter No. 14/385 DKMRL/13 dated 13-8-2002.  The applicants have been utilizing he amount paid to them.  The condition of deposit of bid amount were fulfilled, the bid was accepted subject to deposit of amount demanded which was approved by one of forum.  After inordinate delay the respondents plea that the applicant had imposed ban on execution of lease in May, 2001 and decided to refund the money deposited by the respondent were not of any significance.

From the admitted facts it stands established that the respondent has participated in the auction bid carried out requirements in accordance with the Cantonment laws, lawful bid of the respondent was accepted by the applicant No.s 1 neither fraud or collusion for obtaining benefits has been revealed from the record, coupled  with the applicant NO. 2 had imposed ban which cannot by any stretch of imagination be retrospective in nature. the auction was held in the year, 1982 whereas the imposition of the ban was disclosed to the respondent in the year, 2003.  The applicants are stopped to fake such pleas at a belated stage, the  respondent cannot adversely suffer due to delay in disposal of case by competent authority 1, therefore, hold that the applicant no. 2 was stopped to pass an order for return of the amount already paid if the applicants had failed to finalize the matter the respondent cannot be allowed to suffer, the order passed by the  applicant no. 2 is discriminatory being violative of provisions of Articles 4 and 5 of the Constitution of      Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 as held in case of Shrim Munir and others PLD 1990 SC 295 and Government of  Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Religious Affairs and 3 others 1992 CLC 219.

It will not be out of place to mention that in execution proceedings the competent Court had not only  delivered the possession of the disputed plot to the respondents but Nazir has also executed leases in his  favour in accordance with the judgment and decree passed by the Courts below.

Resultantly I am of the view that the Revision Application is not maintainable in law and is hereby dismissed. The parties are left to bear their own costs. [pp. 1585, 1587, 1588] A, B & C.

Ashraf Ali Butt Applicant.

Shaikh Abdul Majid for Respondent

Date of hearing : 6th March, 2009.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: