1994 PLP 1918 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Art. 4‑‑‑Allotment of land‑‑‑Cancellation of‑‑‑Respondents were allotted plot, but because Authority was unable to effectuate its allotment, alternative plot in the same area was, allotted by Authority to respondents ‑‑‑Last mentioned plot being under encroachment, Authority again failed to deliver possession of that plot to the respondents‑‑‑Several efforts were made by respondents/allottees to obtain possession of last‑mentioned plot, for about 27 years, but with no effect‑‑‑High Court on basis of evidence on record found that another plot in the same area was available which could validly be allotted to respondents‑allottees in lieu of plot which was earlier allotted to allottees but possession thereof was not delivered to respondents‑‑‑Order of High Court appointing Commissioner to have transfer of such plot to respondents, was eminently just and could not be interfered with in High Court Appeal. Khailur Rehman and S.H. Kazilbash for Appellant. Amanullah Khan for Respondents. WAJIHUDDIN AHMED, J‑‑‑This is an application under Order 32, Rule 4, Civil Procedure Code and is dismissed having become infructutous at this stage.

2. Having heard the learned counsel several facts have menifested themselves. It is an admitted position that the partnership firm of which the respondents were partners was on 22‑7‑1959 allotted Plot No. LC‑38 in the_ Landhi Industrial Area but because the Karachi Development Authority was unable to effectuate its allotment, an alternative plot in the same area namely, H‑17 Was allotted on 15‑8‑1960. Evidently the last‑mentioned plot. was under encroachment and the Karachi Development Authority again failed to deliver possession at any point of time to the firm or its partners. This last mentioned plot, therefore, was the subject‑matter of a preliminary decree for dissolution passed by this Court on‑14‑2‑1966. Since then, over a period of 27 years or so, several unsuccessful efforts have been made to obtain possession of Plot No. H‑17 through the agency of this Court on the original side but with no success. Ultimately the learned Single Judge, as the impugned order dated 4‑11‑1992 would indicate, was driven to record evidence to find out whether any alternative plot was available with the Karachi Development Authority so that the Karachi Development could provide it in lieu of Plot No. H‑17 or on its failure that plot could be made available through the process of Court. Clearly, efforts were made in evidence from the side of the Karachi Development Authority to side‑track the issue, yet some palpable admissions were made, on the basis of which the learned Single Judge found that another plot namely LX‑5 in the same industrial area was available and that such being originally an industrial plot was wrongly converted into industrial‑commercial plot. This plot, according to the learned Single Judge, should be provided in Lieu to the respondent. He has so found. The learned Single Judge has also appointed a Commissioner to have the transfer of such plot processed. The order is eminently just. We see no reason to interfere. Appeal dismissed.

3. This application has become infructuous and is dismissed. H.B.T./K‑328/K Appeal and application dismissed.