1990 PLP 879 (CLC)

Syed Himayat Ali Piriada, Sabir Hussain Kazilbash and K.M. Nadeem. A.A.‑G. for Respondents . Date of hearing: 24th October, 1989. AJMAL MIAN, C J.‑‑This petition is directed against an order dated 13‑5‑19.86 passed by the Additional Director Resettlement, Karachi Development Authority, addressed to the Executive Engineer, North Karachi Division, ordering him to hand over the possession of the Industrial Plot No. 45/2/2, situated in Sector 12 D, North Karachi Township, Karachi, hereinafter referred to as the plot, to respondent No.2.

2. The brief facts as averred in the petition are that the plot was allotted to one Mohammad Asghar Oureshi, which was approved by the Karachi Development Authority Governing Body by Resolution No. 43, dated 10‑8‑1980, hereinafter referred to as to allottee. It is the case of the petitioner that the alloltee got the allotment order on 17‑9‑1980. After that he got the possession on 3‑4‑1983 after making the payment of full occupancy charges. It hits also been averred by the petitioner that on 6‑4‑1983 he purchased the plot for a sum of Rs.1,40,000 from the allottee. After that he approached respondent No.l for mutation. He was directed to get a public notice issued in the Press which the petitioner did. Thereafter the petitioner paid a sum of Rs.5,428.25 as the transfer fee to the respondent under challah No.6402, dated 20‑4‑1983. In pursuance of the above payment, the mutation in favour of the petitioner was effected in 1983. After that the impugned order was issued. It is an admitted position that before issuance of the impugned order, the petitioner was not issued any show‑cause notice nor he was heard.

3. Mr. Syed Himayat Ali Piriada, learned counsel for respondent No.2 has invited our attention to the counter‑affidavit filed by the above respondent, in which it hits been averred that factually the plot was not allotted to Mohammad Asghar Oureshi and that he was the bona fide allottee in possession. He has also pointed out that the learned counsel for the K. D. A. made a statement on 6‑12‑1988 that the allotment letter produced by the petitioner is a forged letter.

4. We are not concerned with the merits of the case as the basic question involved is, as to whether the petitioner was entitled to be heard before any adverse order could have been passed in respect of the plot. As pointed out hereinabove that the petitioner has paid a sum of Rs.1,40,000 plus he has spent further amount on the transfer fee and miscellaneous expenses. Admittedly the A mutation was effected by respondent No.1 in favour of the petitioner. In the background of the above facts, the least which was expected was that the petitioner should have been issued a notice.

5. We, therefore, allow the above petition and declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority. However, it will be open to respondent No.1 after notice to the parties to examine the dispute. Till then both the parties shall maintain status quo in respect of the plot.

6. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑951/S Order accordingly