2004 PLP 232 (YLR)

Manzoor Ahmad for Respondents. Dr. Kazi Khalid Ali, Addl. A.‑G. Sindh. Since the parties had presented their respective cases we decided to admit this petition and dispose it of finally. The petitioner No.9 is the original allottee of a plot of land and the petitioners Nos.1 to 8 are subsequent transferees. It appeared that the plot was initially allotted to the petitioner No.9 at the price of Rs.15,000 per, sq. yd. which was subsequently reduced to Rs.2,500 per sq. yd. by the then Chief Minister. However, upon the dissolution of the Government led by the said Chief Minister allotment was cancelled vide letter dated 11‑1‑1997. Subsequently, a reference was filed against the said Chief Minister Sindh and one Akhtar Javed Pirzada, Managing Director of the petitioner No.9, and it was alleged that undue favour was accorded to the petitioner No. 9 to sell of plot at the rate of Rs.2,500 per sq. yd. as against the market price of Rs.15,000 per sq. yd. Eventually, the proceedings against Akhtar Javed Pirzada were dropped upon his agreeing to pay the sale consideration at the rate of Rs.15,000 per sq. yd. and allotment was restored on 10‑8‑1999. The petitioners admittedly made payment of the amount of Rs.66,494,250 to cover the difference between the market price (Rs.15,000) and the price paid (Rs.2,500) and the allotment was restored on 10‑8‑1999. In the meantime, the petitioners have apparently entered into several agreements for transfer of the parts of the plot (which had been subdivided) but when formal allotment/transfer was requested for, the respondents froze any further transaction relating to plot in question. No challan for payment was received and no possession was given till the petitioners moved this Court on 12‑4‑2002. For the first time challan for payment was delivered to the petitioners on 8‑4‑2003 wherein certain amount including Rs.31,623,337 were, inter alia, demanded by way of non‑utilization fee. Mr. Mansoor‑ul‑Arfin, learned counsel for the petitioners, has urged that non‑utilization fee in terms of the allotment order only becomes leviable in case the lessee fails to raise construction within two years from delivery of possession to him. Indeed, this is evident from the terms of the allotment order. Indeed this is not disputed and it is evident from the facts narrated above that the plot never remained in the lawful possession of the petitioners for a period exceeding two years. Indeed, Mr. Manzoor Ahmad was not able to dispute the above position. Nevertheless, he contended that the matter was under consideration of the competent authority in the respondents. While normally we would have left it open to the concerned authorities to take a decision in the exercise of their lawful powers but when it is self‑evident that nothing requiring independent application of mind is to be decided, we see no reason to prolong the agony of the petitioners in leaving them at the mercy of officers of the respondents who were to have scant regards for their public duty to be performed within a reasonable time. We would accordingly allow this petition and direct the respondents to allot the plot to the petitioners within two months from the date when all charges except non‑utilization fee is deposited by the petitioners. A copy of this order will be furnished to the Legal Advisor, City District Government Karachi, at the earliest who will ensure that a new challan is delivered to the petitioners or their counsel within one week from today. The petition stands disposed of alongwith the listed applications. H.B.T./S‑333/K Petition allowed.