1983 PLP 235 (SCMR)
MESSRS QURESHI CONSTRUCTION Co. LTD.-Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER-Respondents
| Citation | 1983 PLP 235 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafi-ur-Rehman and |
| Parties | MESSRS QURESHI CONSTRUCTION Co. LTD.-Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1983 PLP 235 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1983 PLP 235 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Shafi-ur-Rehman and.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1983 PLP 235 (SCMR) (MESSRS QURESHI CONSTRUCTION Co. LTD.-Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF SIND AND ANOTHER-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- A. K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and G. M. Chowdhry, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 2nd November, 1982.
- A. K. Dogar, Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan and G. M. Chowdhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 18-1-1981 in Rev. 358 of 1980). S. 73-Breach of contract-No breach of contract committed by respondent transferor in respect of terms of transfer of lane.'-Applicant hence, entitled to force any other terms on respondent- Subsequent decision reducing rate of sale price being applicable to allotments made after allotment of plots to applicant, reduction of rate, held, applicable to future transactions and not to applicant's transaction.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN BURHANUDDIN KHAN, J.‑This petition is directed against judgment and order of the Sind High Court dated 18‑1.1981 passed in Revision No. 358 of 1980.
2. The petitioner was allotted two industrial plots in the Korangi Industrial Area measuring 10,000 sq. yds. @ Rs. 10 persq yard. The possession was delivered to the petitioner and the first instalment Rs. 2/50 per sq. yard was deposited with respondent No. 2 on 25‑4‑1962.
3. On 19‑8‑1963 the Government of Pakistan (Rehabilitation and Works Division) framed a policy, reviewed their previous policy and in para. 4 of the Policy letter reduced the price of Industrial plots in order to encourage the industrialization in the area. It is stated by the petitioner that after the issuance of aforesaid policy letter of 19‑8‑1963 he offered to purchase the plots @ Rs. 4 per sq. yard but the respondents insisted that Rs. 10 per sq. yard was the real price. In letter dated 11‑8‑1969 the peti tioner was asked to deposit the balance of the cost of the plots. Later on, the Government of Pakistan took a decision on 10.2‑1970 that rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yard was the proper rate and, therefore, the letter of the Government of Sind, containing reference to the letter dated 10‑2‑1970, clinched the matter. The petitioner challenged this decision in a civil suit 'which was dismissed on 25‑2‑1976. His appeal was dismissed by the District Judge on 16‑8‑1980 where after he filed a Revision Petition No. 358 of 1980 in the Sind High Court which was dismissed in limini vide the impugned order.
4. Learned counsel's main contention is that the previous allotment order was a provisional allotment order and that the policy letter dated 19‑6‑1963 has been misread and misconstrued by the lower Courts below ; in fact the price fixed by this policy letter was the real terms of the contract between the parties and the previous rate of Rs. 10 per sq. yard was 'ad hoc' price.
5. We have examined the contention of the learned counsel and find that no breach of terms has been committed by the respondent so as to entitled the applicant to force any other terms on the respondent. Subsequent decision reducing the rate to Rs. 4 per sq. yard was applicable to the allotments made after the allotment of the plots to the applicant as even the policy letter would show that it was applicable to the future transactions We find no merit in this petition which is, accordingly, dismissed. Petition dismissed.