2005 PLP 25 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ZAKIR — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR KATCHI ABADI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 25 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ZAKIR — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR KATCHI ABADI and others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 25 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 25 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 25 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ZAKIR — Petitioner Versus DIRECTOR KATCHI ABADI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ibadul Hussain for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Ahmad for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 105 & 108
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199-- Constitutional petition
Plot in dispute was, allotted to predecessor-in -interest of petitioner way back in 1951 together with possession and rights, in the same as well as rights for transfer to petitioner
Occupation of petitioner over plot in dispute 'was admitted by respondent, but no regularization of same was effected
Petitioner after failing to obtain redress from concerned Authorities, filed Constitutional petition and by a consent order dated 27-8-2002 respondents were directed to survey the plot and pass allotment order/grant lease in favour of petitioner according to law
Petitioner applied for lease of allotted plot at rate of Rs.300 per square yard, in 1998, but rates having since been revised to Rs.4500 per square yard, respondent had contended that petitioner was liable to pay revised rates
Petitioner was entitled to execution of lease in his favour long before filing of petition and it was only due to failure of respondent to perform its duly ordained by law that petitioner was constrained to move High Court
Respondent could demand only such amount as was payable by petitioner when right to execute lease in his favour occurred
No justification was found for claiming revised rates and lease could be executed after recovering charges payable on the date when right in favour of petitioner accrued.
Judgment & Decree
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.
Granted. Mr. Manzoor Ahmad attempted to justify the respondent's failure to implement the Court order by contending that the petitioner had applied for lease of allotted plot at the rate of Rs.300 per square yard in 1998. The rate has since been revised to Rs.4,500 per square yard and the petitioner does not appear to be willing to pay the revised rates. It may be recalled that according to the petitioner the plot was allotted to his predecessor-in-interest way back in 1951 together with possession and the rights in the same as well as possession for transfer to the petitioner. His occupation of the plot in the Katchi Abadi was admitted by the respondent but no regularization was effected. Obviously that it had not been surveyed or numbered. The petitioner moved this Court after failing to obtain redress from concerned authorities and by a consent order, dated 27-8-2002 the respondents were directed to survey the plot and pass allotment order/grant lease according to law. Obviously the petitioner was entitled to execution of a lease in his favour long before the petition was filed and it was only due to failure of the respondent to perform their duties ordained by law that he was constrained to move this Court. Therefore the respondents could only demand such amount as was payable by the petitioner when the right to execute the lease in his favour occurred. We are afraid that by raising the argument that he is liable to pay at the revised rates, learned counsel is only attempting to claim that the respondents are entitled to a premium in their own in their own inefficiency and defiance of law. We regret such kind of logic being canvassed on behalf of the public body. Let it be made clear that the mere fact of depriving somebody of property can give rise to a claim for damages in addition to direction for delivery of property. We would therefore, order that there is absolutely no justification for claiming revised rates and the lease' may be executed after recovering charges payable on the date when the right in favour of the petitioner occurred. The application stands disposed of accordingly. A copy of this order may be communicated to the Nazim Aala who will ensure that such injustices are not done and people are not required to approach the Court unnecessarily. H.B.T./M-146/K Order accordingly.