1990 PLP 862 (CLC)

S. Inayat Ali for Respondents Nos.1 and 2. S.M. Nurul Hasan for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 14th November, 1988. AJMAL MIAN, C J.‑‑This petition is directed against the orders dated 22‑6‑1976 and 20‑11‑1978, passed by respondents Nos.2 and 1 respectively. The brief facts leading to the filing of the petition are that plot of land bearing No.93, situated in Khayabana‑e‑Beharia, Defence Officers Cooperative, Housing Society, Karachi (hereinafter referred to as the Society) was allotted to one Sub‑Lt. M. Mubarik on 16‑12‑1971 by the Society. It appears that he transferred the above plot on 24‑1‑1972 in favour of respondent 3, Lt.‑Colonel (Retd.) M.Z. Kidwai, who in turn transferred the same to Mrs. Anisa Kirmani, who eventually transferred it to the petitioner. It appears that there was dispute between the respondent 3 and the Society, as to the mutation of his name, and therefore, respondent 3 invoked arbitration which resulted into an award in his favour. Thereupon, his name was mutated by the Society. After that above sale transactions had taken place. It appears that the lease has been executed by the Society, in favour of the petitioner on 11‑5‑1974. After the Indo‑Pak War in 1970, the plot in question was taken over as abandoned property of a specified person under the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act 1975 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent 3, filed an application under section 13 of the Act for ‑confirmation of the above sale transaction, which application was taken up by respondent 2, who after hearing the parties, by his order dated 11‑12‑1975, made a recommendation to respondent 1 under section 13 (g) of the Act for the confirmation of the above sale transaction on the ground that it was a bona fide transaction. However, it seems that respondent No.1 rejected the above recommendation and thereafter respondent 2, by order dated 22‑6‑1976, passed the order, "the proposal is rejected. Announced". Thereupon, respondent, 3 filed an appeal against the above order which was dismissed by respondent 1 on the ground of limitation. The petitioner, who is the last purchaser of the plot from Mrs. Anisa Kirmani, has filed the present petition impugning the above order. In support of the above petition, Mr. Sharif Khattak, learned counsel for the petitioner, has vehemently urged that there was no justification for respondent 1 to have rejected the proposal for the confirmation of the sale, as there was no material available on record contrary to what was relied upon by respondent 1, while making recommendation for the confirmation of the sale transaction. It has been further urged that even the dismissal of the appeal by respondent 1 on the ground of limitation was not warranted by law. On the other hand, Mr. S. Inayat AIL learned counsel appearing for respondents 1 and 2 has submitted that factually the petitioner had not filed the appeal and the appeal was filed by respondent 3 and hence the petitioner has no locus standi to impugn the above order. We may observe that it is an admitted position that the petitioner is the last purchaser of the (sic) and the impugned order in fact affected his rights, as neither respondent 3 nor Mrs. Anisa Kirmani has any interest in the plot after having sold the same to the petitioner. It was within the knowledge of respondent 2 as well as respondent 1 that the petitioner was the last purchaser of the plot for consideration, in whose favour even the lease was executed by the Defence Housing Society. He was not issued any notice either by respondent 2 or by respondent 1 while adjudicating upon the question whether the plot was an abandoned property. We are therefore, inclined to hold that the petitioner has locus standi to impugne the above order. As regards the merits of the case, nothing has been brought on record by the respondents to indicate that the finding recorded by respondent 2 that the transaction was bona fide, was not based on material on record or was contrary to the evidence on record. Mr. S.M. Nurul Hassan, learned counsel for the respondent 3 supports the case of the petitioner. We are inclined to hold that B respondent 1 was not justified in treating the plot as an abandoned property. We therefore, allow the petition and declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, there will be no order as to costs. M.Y.H./1‑88/E Petition allowed.