h1

2008 YLR 1587

SHAHZAD YOUSAF
V/S
PROVINCE OF SINDH & ORS

Per Syed Pir Ali Shah, J–

Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Arts. 199, 23 & 24–
r/w Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotment,
Conversion and Exchange Ordinance (III of 2001)

In this petition, filed under Article 199 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, the petitioner has stated that he was granted 4-0 acres of land out of Naclass No. 82 Deh Phiahi District, East, Karachi on 99 years’ lease at the rate of Rs. 100 per square yard for residential/commercial purpose by the respondent No. 1 vide allotment Order No. PS/MBR/(LU)/1806/95 dated 1-10-1995. His case is that on 12-10-1995, he made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, East, Karachi now D.O. (Revenue), the respondent No. 3, for issuance of challan for payment of 25% lease money and an amount of Rs. 4,84,000 was worked out at the rate of Rs.100 per square yard which could not be materialized due to change of Government.  The contention of the petitioner is that he repeatedly made applications, dated 11-1-1996 and 8-3-1997 but with no result.

Admittedly, said challan was not issued by the respondents of no fault on the part of the petitioner.  Had it been so, that the petitioner slept over his right and that he was not vigilant then responsibility could have been fixed upon him.  But documents and material available on record are the concrete proof that he was vigorously pursuing his matter constantly.  In any case, he cannot be termed as negligent, irresponsible or defaulter while performing his legal obligations.  On the contrary respondents seem to have ignored and neglected while issuing challan to the petitioner to enable him to make payment of the differential amount duly assessed and fixed by the Enquiry Commission headed by a retired Judge of this Court.  It is not a case that the differential amount assessed and fixed by the Enquiry Commission formed under the Ordinance of 2001 was challenged by the respondents before any forum.  All the same, it is concluded that the respondents acted disriminatory by not issuing requisite challan.  It, therefore, follows that the respondents did not apply the rule of consistency and acted otherwise resulting that the legal and valid rights of the petitioner vested under the Constitution were infringed which compelled him to file this constitutional petition which is accordingly allowed.  The respondents are required to issue challan of occupancy charges/lease money of the subject land to the petitioner for payment in accordance with the prince determined and approved by the Commisson and after its payment, regularize the subject land and issue necessary NOC in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of 2001-Ordinance.  The respondents are restrained from alienating, interfering, transferring and/or leasing out the subject land to any one else in any manner with further directions to act in accordance with law.  With these reasonings, this constitutional petition stands disposed of.  [pp. 1588, 1590] A & B

Mushtaq A. Memon and Muhammad Ali Hakro for petitioner
Ahmed Pirzada, A.A. G for Respondents
Date of hearing: 18th January, 2008.

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: