2001 PLP 63 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Purchase of plots in auction‑‑ Cancellation of plots‑‑‑Failure to issue allotment order‑‑‑Petitioner was successful bidder and had paid 50% of the occupancy value in accordance with the terms of auction‑‑‑Authorities did not issue the allotment order and the petitioner failed to pay the balance price within specified time‑‑‑Plots were cancelled from the name of the petitioner without any show‑cause notice‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Value of the plots was tremendously increased and it was not fair to tie down the Authorities to deliver possession on the basis of terms agreed several years ago because of negligence of their officers‑‑ Petitioner having agreed to pay Rs.1,00,000 over and above the occupancy value of the plots. Authorities were directed by High Court to deliver allotment order and possession of plots upon payment of Rs.1,00,000 to the petitioner. Ch. A. Rashid for Petitioner. Muzaffar Inam for Respondent No.2. Ainuddin Khan, Addl. A.‑G. The petitioner who was the highest bidder in respect of the certain plots of land being auctioned by the respondent No.2 paid 50% of the occupancy value in accordance with the terms of the auction. However, the allotment order as required by the terms of auction was not admittedly issued and thereafter he did not pay the remaining occupancy value within the specified time, notice of demands was issued requiring him to pay the amount together with surcharge at the rate of 12.5 % per annum and upon failure of the petitioner to pay surcharge the plot was cancelled. The petitioner has approached this Court alleging that the levy of surcharge in the circumstances and the cancellation of the plot are illegal. Ch. A. Rashid, learned counsel for the petitioner had argued that the petitioner was not responsible for default in making payment of the 3rd and 4th instalments and the occupancy value because the respondent No.2 failed to issue an allotment order required by the terms of the auction. This fact is not disputed by the respondent No.2. Moreover, it is alleged that the cancellation was affected without show‑cause notice and giving an opportunity of being heard and the order is liable to be, struck down on this ground as well. While the above contentions do appear to carry force it was pointed out to Ch. A. Rashid that the value of plots has tremendously increased and may not be entirely fair to tie down the respondent to deliver possession on the basis of terms agreed several years ago because of negligence of their officers. He agreed that the petitioners would be willing to pay Rs.1,00,000 over and above occupancy value of the plots the entire occupancy value has already been paid as admitted by Mr. Muzaffar Inam, Advocate. He would, therefore, allow this petition by directing the respondent No. l to deliver allotment order and possession of the plots upon payment of Rs. 1, 00,000 by the petitioner within one week from today. In ease the petitioner failed to make such payment the respondent No.2 will be free to dispose of the plots upon such terms as it deems fit. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑33/K Petition allowed.