2001 PLP 2566 (YLR)
Mst. NUZHAT IRFAN — Petitioner Versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION through Assistant Director Lands (Lease), Karachi and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 2566 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Sabihuddin Ahmed and S. Ali Aslam Jafri, JJ |
| Parties | Mst. NUZHAT IRFAN — Petitioner Versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION through Assistant Director Lands (Lease), Karachi and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Karachi Development Authority Allotment Regulations |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 2566 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Karachi Development Authority Allotment Regulations as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 2566 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Sabihuddin Ahmed and S. Ali Aslam Jafri, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 2566 (YLR) (Mst. NUZHAT IRFAN — Petitioner Versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION through Assistant Director Lands (Lease), Karachi and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.H. Gharib Nawaz Daccawala for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Yasin Kiyani alongwith Ms. Razia Sultana, Project Director of Orangi Township for Respondent No.1.
- S. Jamil Ahmad alongwith Akhlaq Ahmad, Director Town Planning for Respondent No.2.
- In response to a notice served upon the respondent No.1 through the petitioner's Advocate the petitioner was shocked to receive a reply to the effect that the Plot No.SA-88. Sector 10 Orangi Township, Karachi, did not exist and no question of handing it over to the petitioner would g possibly arise. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court through this petition. We had called upon the Respondent No.2 to explain how a non-existent plot came to be allotted to the petitioner and how consideration for the same was received. An inquiry was conducted into the matter and .cording to the report of Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad. Director Town Planning of respondent No.2 the plot did exist but had been encroached upon. We, therefore, directed Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad as well as the Director, Orangi Township Project of respondent No.1, to be personally available.
- Ms. Razia Sultana the incumbent of the office of Director Orangi Township Project of respondent No.1 has candidly acknowledged that the report of Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad is correct and the plot still in existence though it has been presently approached upon. She as well as Muhammad Yasin Kiyani, learned counsel for respondent No.1, have expressed regret over the issuance of the letter, dated 22-6-1999 but have stated that the author has since been removed from service.
Headnotes / Summary
Reglns. 6 & 23
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Constitutional petition-- Allotment of plot
Plot in dispute was allotted to petitioner, but despite the allotment physical possession thereof was not delivered to the allottee
In response to notice served by the allottee on the Authority, it was stated that said . plot did not exist and question of delivering the possession did not arise
On filing Constitutional petition, an enquiry was conducted into the matter and Director, Town Planning of the Authority stated that plot in dispute did exist, but had been encroached upon
Nigh Court directed the Authority to deliver the plot to the allottee/petitioner without unnecessary delay after getting all the encroachments removed.
Judgment & Decree
The petitioner was allotted Plot NO.SA-88. . Sector 10 Orangi Township, Karachi by the respondent No.2 having purchased the same in open auction held on 15-4-1980. Though the purchase price. was paid according to the terms of allotment upto 1981, physical possession was not delivered to the petitioner. In 1981 the project whereunder the plot exists was transferred to the respondent No.1. The petitioner kept on approaching various officers in the respondent No.1 but they failed to cause physical delivery of the plot to her. The reason according to the petitioner was that owning to the negligence of respondent No.1 the plot had come under encroachment and the respondent No.1 instead of removing the encroachers preferred to deprive the petitioner of her lawful rights. In response to a notice served upon the respondent No.1 through the petitioner's Advocate the petitioner was shocked to receive a reply to the effect that the Plot No.SA-88. Sector 10 Orangi Township, Karachi, did not exist and no question of handing it over to the petitioner would g possibly arise. The petitioner thereafter approached this Court through this petition. We had called upon the Respondent No.2 to explain how a non-existent plot came to be allotted to the petitioner and how consideration for the same was received. An inquiry was conducted into the matter and .cording to the report of Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad. Director Town Planning of respondent No.2 the plot did exist but had been encroached upon. We, therefore, directed Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad as well as the Director, Orangi Township Project of respondent No.1, to be personally available. Ms. Razia Sultana the incumbent of the office of Director Orangi Township Project of respondent No.1 has candidly acknowledged that the report of Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad is correct and the plot still in existence though it has been presently approached upon. She as well as Muhammad Yasin Kiyani, learned counsel for respondent No.1, have expressed regret over the issuance of the letter, dated 22-6-1999 but have stated that the author has since been removed from service. Be that as it may, we are clearly of the opinion that having assumed all the assets and liabilities of the Orangi Township Project the respondent No.1, is required .by law to deliver physical possession of Plot No.S-88, Sector 10 Orangi Township, Karachi, to the petitioner without unnecessary delay. As requested by Mr. Muhammad Yasin Kiyani we would also add that doing so and removing encroachment upon the plot the respondent No.1 is entitled to use of such force as may be provided by law or seek the assistance of law enforcing agencies. We would according allow this petition with costs of Rs.10,000 (Rupees ten thousand) and direct the respondent No.1 to ensure delivery of the plot the petitioner within two months from today arid report compliance. The petitioner stands disposed of alongwith the listed applicant. H.B.T./N-63/K Order accordingly.