2004 PLP 1642 (MLD)

SABIHUDDIN AHMAD, J.- The petitioners appear to be aggrieved by the decision given to auction of Plot No.ST/73, Sector 8-B, Saeedabad Baldia Town, on the ground that the aforesaid plot was leased out to the petitioner No.1 through Indenture of Lease dated 21-5-1998 executed by the respondent No.3 and thereafter no interest in the same could validly created by the aforesaid respondent. It may be added that after having obtained the aforesaid lease the petitioner No.1 transferred its interest in favour of the petitioners Nos.2 and 3 through registered sale-deed dated 27-6-2000.

2. The petitioners have relied upon the lease deed executed by an Assistant Director Land of the respondent No.3 purporting to transfer 600 sq.Yards of land in Katchi Abadi. It is argued that the plot is located in Katchi Abadi of Saeedabad Baldia Township. However, nothing is placed on record to indicate that the petitioners' right of occupation of a plot in Katchi Abadi was recognized by the Government in accordance with the Katchi Abadis Act, 1987. Significantly, the lease dead appears to be completely silent with reference to Resolution of the Council Notification of the Controlling Authority or the scheme under which allotment was made. At the same time it is worth noticing that according to the site-plan placed on record while plot 80 sq. Yards were allotted most of the residents the petitioner No.1 managed to secure allotment of commercial plot measuring 600 sq. Yards.

3. Contesting the petitioners' claim Mr. Manzoor Ahmad, Legal Advisor of the respondent No.3, pointed out that the plot in question was admittedly a commercial plot and could not be disposed of except through public auction in terms of section 45(4) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979 and rule 8 of the Local Council Land Rules. It has been stated in the counter-affidavit that the lease deed executed by one Muhammad Ibrahim, who was then Assistant Director Land of the respondent was an outcome of misuse of power and his services were subsequently terminated on account of similar acts.

4. Mr. Fahim Riaz Siddiqui, learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to meet this contention by arguing that the petitioners could not be expected to know the extent of powers of each officer of the respondent No.3 and would not be penalized for any illegality committed by any particular officer. We are afraid this proposition would not be of much help because it is well-settled that ignorance of law is never a ground of taking advantage of illegalities and a person not acquiring valid legal title cannot pass on title to another. Section 45(4) clearly states that all contracts for transfer of immovable property (including lease) shall, subject to the rules, be entered into after inviting offers in an open public auction. Subsection (5) refers to certain exceptional, where subsection (4) may not be applied but the petitioners case does not fall under any of these categories. Moreover the Local Council Land Rules also clearly provide for disposal of commercial plots through public auction and no rule has been cited by Mr. Siddiqui to indicate that such plots could be disposed of otherwise.

5. For the forgoing reasons we find no substance and would accordingly dismiss this petition in limine. H.B.T./M-88/K Petition dismissed.