2009 PLP 1374 (YLR)

The counter affidavit filed by the respondent City District Government Karachi and others pertaining to its para 6 reads as under: "That the contents of Paras 2 to 7 of the petition are admitted to the extent that the Plot No.GPC-4, measuring 100 sq. yds. Scheme 24, was originally allotted to Dr. Muhammad Aslam Siddiqui through open public auction held on 15-12-1980 and after confirmation of the bid and making 50% of occupancy value of the plot, the allotment-cum-possession was issued on 14-4-1981. Thereafter, on 15-12-1987, the allottee had submitted a pay order for crediting the same against balance occupancy value and ground rent and requested for delivery of possession of the plot. The pay order was credited through challan dated 24-1-1989 and the Accounts Officer (Revenue), KDA, also issued a separate challan for remaining dues to surcharges and NUF, which was also deposited by the allottee on 13-3-1989. The allottee approached for delivery of physical possession and stated that the plot in question was under encroachment. On request of the Executive Engineer GJD-II, KDA, vide his letter dated 30-5-1996 intimated that the said plot was under encroachment by ways of hutments and the person was residing thereon since last six years. On 31-7-1996, the Executive Engineer intimated that the encroachment was removed and possession of the plot may be delivered to the allottee. The Accounts Department KDA Wing, CDGK, worked out an amount of Rs.2,11,980 being NUF and other dues upto 30-6-1998." No document is annexed with the said counter-affidavit nor any details are stated as to the nature/reasons of the charges payable by the petitioner; so also no provision .of law has been quoted by the said respondent as to how and in what manner the respondents could direct the petitioner to make payments towards such "remaining dues of surcharges and NUF". Again the said demand, as stated in the said counter-affidavit, is very ambiguous for the reason that simultaneously, it is stated therein. "The pay order was credited through challan dated 24-1-1989 and the Accounts Officer (Revenue), KDA, also issued a separate challan for remaining dues of surcharges and NUF, which was also deposited by the allottee on 13-3-1989"; this stand taken by the respondents concedes that the petitioner deposited the amounts against "remaining dues of surcharges and NUF". Under the circumstances, the stand taken by respondents is not clear and demand, so made by them from the petitioner, appears to be unjustified. Accordingly, the petition is hereby allowed as prayed for and the respondents are hereby directed to perform all the remaining formalities towards transfer of the possession of the plot in question in favour of the petitioner and to report compliance of this order within sixty days from this date. H.B.T./M-70/K Petition allowed.