2007 PLP 2432 (YLR)

JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.

The petitioner LDA impugns the concurrent decrees of the learned trial Court dated 19-5-2000 and' of the learned Appellate Court dated 18-2-2001 whereby a declaratory suit tiled by the respondents- l plaintiffs, namely, Faiz Muhammad Khan and Tauqeer Fayyaz Bhatti has been decreed. By virtue of the decree LDA has been directed to grant adjustment to the respondent No.2. in respect of a plot of land measuring 1 Kanal.

2. Learned counsel for LDA has drawn .the attention of the Court to the I relief which was sought by the respondents- plaintiffs. For ease of reference, the prayer is reproduced asunder:-- "It is, therefore, respectfully prayed that a decree in favour of the plaintiffs and against the defendants may kindly be passed declaring that the plaintiff No.2 is the lawful owner of the above described property and the defendants are not authorized to allocate the said plot to any other person without decision of the applications of the plaintiffs. It is further prayed that the defendants may kindly be permanently restrained from interfering in the ownership or F possessory rights of the plaintiff No.2 over the said property in any manner whatsoever. It is further prayed that the defendants may kindly be directed to decide the applications of the plaintiffs for adjustment of the land immediately and to allocate the same permanently after receiving the development charges in accordance with the policy and the law. Any other relief to which the plaintiffs are found entitled may also be awarded. Costs of the suit may also be awarded."

3. It was argued that the applications, referred to in the prayer clause, which were filed by the respondents and are under consideration of LDA but before the same could be decided the respondent No.1 filed c his declaratory suit out of which this petition has arisen. Learned counsel stated that LDA would have no objection if, while granting relief to the respondents, LDA is directed to decide the pending applications as has been prayed for by the respondents. However, LDA has serious objection to the decree as presently framed, firstly, because C the respondents-plaintiffs had not, in fact, sought an order directing LDA to adjust the land in question and secondly, because it is yet to be determined if the respondents are entitled to adjustment.

4. The submissions of learned counsel for LDA are well founded and are D consistent with the record.

5. Learned counsel for LDA also took me through the relief which was granted to the respondents. The learned trial Court has held that plaintiff No.2 (respondent No.2 herein), namely, Tauqeer Fayyaz Bhatti "is entitle for the adjustment of the property in dispute subject to payment of development E charges and other dues prescribed in this behalf." With justification it was argued on behalf of LDA that this relief is beyond the prayer made by the respondents-plaintiffs and could not, therefore, be granted.

6. In view of the foregoing discussion, the impugned decrees are modified. It is' held that the respondent No.2 is not, presently, entitled for adjustment of the property which was owned by respondent No.l. However, LDA F shall decide the pending applications (which have been filed with it by the respondents) in accordance with its regulations after issuing notice to the respondents-plaintiffs.

7. This petition is allowed in the above terms. S.A.K./L-5/L?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition allowed.