P L D 2006 Supreme Court 142 (PLP)

RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.

Petitioner-Rawalpindi Develop?ment Authority is aggrieved by Lahore High Court judgment dated 7-6-2004 allowing respondents' writ petition directed against decision dated 15-6-2000 passed by Director-General of the petitioner Authority in pursuance of the Lahore High Court order dated 15-3-2003 in Writ Petition No.503 of 2000 filed by respondent No.1 against the petitioner-Authority and others.

2. Respondents' predecessor-in-interest Fazal Karim and Muhammad Amin purchased Plots Nos. 22 and 33 in open auction from the erstwhile Rawalpindi Improvement Trust. Upon payment of the price of the plots, a sale agreement was executed in their favour. They submitted a site plan for construction of the building, which was duly approved. They thereupon constructed a house thereon. On the death of Fazal Karim and Muhammad Amin, an application was made for mutation of the plots in the name of respondents vide application dated 4-11-1991. On its part, petitioner-Authority directed the respondents to submit proof of payment of Rs.5059 as arrears of land revenue due and payable. Respondents refutted the said demand, where after demand notice for payment of Rs.13,91,830 as arrears of rent at the rate of Rs.303 per month with effect from 26-8-1962 to 31-12-1999 was issued to them. Respondents challenged the demand in the earlier writ petition, which was disposed of with a direction to the Authority to look into their grievance and to dispose of their pending appeal strictly according to law. Respondents' appeal was rejected and the decision vide letter dated 15-6-2000 communicated to the Deputy Registrar of the High Court with a copy to the respondents leading to the writ petition.

3. Writ petition was resisted on the averments that the respondents were directed vide notice dated 9-9-1961 to deposit a sum of Rs.4,702 but they failed to deposit the same. Accordingly a resolution was passed by the Trust to serve the allottees with final a show cause to pay composition fee within two weeks, failing which illegal construction would be demolished. Respondents submitted a representation for remission of penalty which was rejected on 22-3-1962, whereafter the Trust resumed the plots vide order dated 25-8-1962. Accordingly to the petitioner-Authority, since the plots were resumed, the respondents were liable to pay rent at the rate of Rs.7,992 for two years with effect from 26-8-1962 to 25-8-1964 and at the rate of Rs.303 per month for the subsequent period.

4. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and examining the record as well as rival contentions, Lahore High Court allowed the writ petition on the premise that though the demand for dues amounting to Rs.4,702 as composition fee was raised as far back as 7-8-1962, but, for non-deposit thereof, no action was taken till 20-1-2000 when for the first time demand notice was issued to the respondents calling upon them to deposit a sum of Rs.13,91,

830. High Court observed that the action of the petitioner-Authority in directing resumption of the plots and claiming rent was not supported by any law because the property in dispute was permanently transferred to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest being the highest bidder. High Court noted that in payment of Rs.18,000 as bid money had been made on acceptance of highest bid and, thus, the bidder acquired absolute right, interest and title to the property, which could not be disturbed for non-payment of composition fee. In the ultimate analysis, High Court accepted the demand of the petitioner-Authority in the sum of Rs.4,702 raised in the year 1961 and calculating the same with mark-up reckoned the amount to Rs.31,

362. Consequently, writ petition was allowed subject to deposit of above said amount within a period of one month with direction to the petitioner-Authority to effect mutation in favour of the respondents subject to payment of transfer fee and other ancillary charges, hence this petition.

5. We have heard Mrs. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the petitioners and gone through the impugned judgment as well as the record.

6. Learned counsel has not been able to pinpoint any question of law of public importance arising in the facts and circumstances of the petition. Learned counsel contended that the High Court ought not to have declared the demand notice as without lawful authority and should have allowed the petitioner-Authority to recover rent of the plots from the writ petitioners. Learned counsel is, however, unable to cite any provision of law enabling and authorizing the petitioner-Authority to resume the plots and claim rent after a period of 38 years in a writ petition filed by the respondents, when they had acquired absolute right and title in the property and raised construction after approval of the site plan. Only allegation against them appears to be some irregularity or deviation from the approved plan, which would not justify the resumption of the plots as wrongly resorted to by the petitioner-Authority. In our considered opinion, High Court was perfectly justified in striking down the impugned action of the petitioner-Authority, which was patently illegal and unwarranted. It is high time to act fairly and rationally while resorting to avoidable and unnecessary litigation by public authorities.

7. At any rate, no question of law of public importance has been raised within the contemplation of Article 185(3) of the Constitution with the result that we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed. M.H./D-1/S???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition dismissed.