2009 PLP 602 (MLD)

The issue involved in this petition is that the petitioner's society is objecting on the construction of a plot bearing No.31-A, Muhammad All Memorial Cooperative Housing Society Limited, on the ground that there is no record of ownership of the respondent No.6 but of respondent No.3 and that the KBCA has wrongly entertained proposed building plan and approved it. As a consequence of pendency of the petition, the KBCA cancelled the approved plan in the year, 2006, which was approved on 1-9-2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent No.6 has no right or title to get the plan approved through KBCA or to raise construction nor the KBCA has power to do so. On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Shahid Jamiluddin, learned counsel for KBCA submits that the proposed building plan was entertained when all requisite formalities were fulfilled by the respondent No.6 and under the regulation it was approved on 1-9-2004 while there is no building violation. Mr. Khawaja Shamas-ul-Islam, learned counsel for the respondent No.6, states that respondent No.6 is a purchaser of the above plot from respondent Nos.4 & 5, who were sold the said plot by the respondent No.3 and that his clientess is holding the plot under the registered sale deed, while there is no objection from the respondent No.3. He further submits that by virtue of section 17-B of the Cooperative Societies Act the respondent No.3 ceased to be a member of society, while respondent No.6 is standing on the footing of her predecessor and that proper and legal documents were submitted for approval of the building plan which was approved, but the KBCA under the pressure of society cancelled the same after about two years. He has further pointed out letters of the society, dated 17-2-2004 and 4-5-2004 whereby the petitioner has directed the respondent No.6 to pursue different offices without any reason notwithstanding the fact that after submission of sale deed to the society she was the owner of plot and rests of the formalities were to be fulfilled by the Cooperative Society as the required fees was paid. After hearing the learned counsel we have examined section 17-B of Cooperative Societies Act which provide that a member of Cooperative Society after transfer of interests in the immoveable property will crease to a member of the Society and the transferee be admitted as a member subject to the rule of society. In the present case, there is no dispute from the previous owner and the respondent No.6 is holding the property under registered sale deed, therefore, Cooperative Society would have acted in terms of its own byelaws as well as section 17-B of the Cooperative Societies Act and would have mutated the property in its record in the name of respondent No.6 but instead of doing so it has unnecessarily referred the respondent No.6 to various offices which were nothing but harassment. We further observe that the KBCA has wrongly cancelled the approved building plan without realizing the legal position as its approval was on the basis of proper and legal documents and it would have not yielded to the pressure of society. We have also been informed that the house is completed in all respect in terms of the approved building plan without any violation and same has already been occupied. In the above given circumstances, we do not find any reason for filing this petition and the issue could have been solved at the stage of officials of the society adopting a proper and reasonable way and would have saved the time of this court as well as other concerned which has not been done. Hence the petition is dismissed along with pending applications with cost of Rs.50,000 on the petitioner and Rs.25,000 on KBCA to be paid to respondent No.6 within a period of 15 days. H.B.T./M-30/K Petition dismissed.