2010 PLP 1835 (CLC)

The appellants impugn the order dated 17-4-2008 passed in Writ Petition No.2175 of 2004. The appellants pray for modification of the said order.

2. Zulfiqar Ali, the predecessor-in-interest of the appellants owned land measuring 160 kanals in villages Lunda Mastal and Chahan in Tehsil and, District Islamabad. This land was acquired by the C.D.A. Besides the payment of compensation, eligibility certificate in favour of Zulfiqar Ali was issued for allotment in District Jhang. Zulfiqar Ali failed to have that land allotted. He surrendered the eligibility certificate to the respondents and applied for allotment of Agro Farming Plot in Orchard Industry Scheme at Murree Road, Islamabad. Besides, having recourse to the honourable Ombudsman, the appellants instituted Writ Petition No.2741 of 2001. Vide judgment dated 21-5-2003 this honourable Court directed the respondents to decide the petitioner's application subject to applicable terms and conditions. The judgment was not complied with. The appellants ultimately instituted the writ petition in question. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order directed the respondents to decide the application of the appellants in accordance with law within a period of three months. The appellants feeling aggrieved by the said judgment as it did not specifically order the respondents to allot the plot in Orchard and Nursery Scheme at Murree Road Islamabad, have preferred the instant appeal.

3. When summoned, the respondents assured that the order passed by this Court would be implemented. The allotment scrutiny committee of the respondent on 12-12-2008 and C.D.A. Board on 19-12-2008 principally approved the case for allotment of Agro Farming Plot to the appellants. As the respondents were trying to procrastinate the matter on various pretext, the Director, Estate Management IInd C.D.A. vide order dated 12-4-2010, was directed by this Court to issue the allotment letter by the 13-4-2010. Learned counsel for C.D.A. appeared on 3-5-2010 and intimated that Plot No.37 measuring 2.5 acres situated in Orchard Scheme on Murree Road had been offered to the petitioner at the rate of Rs.40,00,000 (forty Lac) per acre for a total consideration of Rs.10,000,000 (one crore). The appellants moved C.M.No.1019 of 2010 and C.M.No.1343 praying that the price referred in the offer letter is excessive and C.D.A. be ordered to charge the price applicable on 21-5-2003 that is the date of the announcement of the judgment passed in Writ Petition No.1742 of 2003 or the price prevalent on 15-4-2009 i.e. the date of commitment made by the respondents.

4. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellants that the petitioner has always been ready to make the payment and he was obliged to have recourse. to honourable Ombudsman and filed successive Constitutional petition in this Court to have his right enforced, the delay has been caused on the side of the respondent, he cannot take the benefit of the delay caused due to the inaction on his end; the appellants could only be made to pay the price that was prevalent on 21-5-2003; he cannot be obliged to pay the escalated price. Reliance is placed on "1994 CLC 369" titled (Syed Ali Shah v. Govt. of Pakistan and 2 others).

5. On the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the C.D.A contends that during the intervening period, ban had been imposed on the allotment of the Agro plots; so the duration of the ban cannot be discredited against the respondent; and that in view of the depreciation in the money and appreciation in the prices of the real estate, the price demanded from the appellant is not excessive and exorbitant.

6. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and have also gone through the record.

7. As per notification dated 3-12-2001 annexed with C.M.No.1019 of 2010, the rate in respect of the land in question was fixed at .Rs.18,00,000 (eighteen lacs) per acre. This notification was in vogue even on 21-5-2003 when judgment was passed in Writ Petition No.2741 of 2001 by this Court. As per this notification the total price of the land comes to Rs.45,00,000 (forty five lac). The price offered by the respondents in the letter No.C.D.A./EM-II(PVC(39) (37)/2010 is rupees 40,00;000 (forty lac) per acre which in total comes to Rs.100,00,000 (one crore) along with Annual Ground Rent (AGR). There is no negation of the fact that the appellants are entitled to the allotment of the land in question besides the compensation which they have already received in view of the provisions of 4(c) of Islamabad Displaced Persons Rehabilitation Policy, 1984 and para 7(2) of the same Policy issued in the year 1996, but this is not the moot point at this juncture. The dispute between the parties is regarding the rate of the land. No doubt the price in vogue on 21-5-2003 when this Court passed the judgment in Writ Petition No.2741 of 2001 was Rs.18,00,000 (eighteen lac) per acre making the total price Rs.45,00,000 (forty five lac). Without commenting on the issue as to whom the intervening delay cannot be attributed, which at least cannot be attributed to the appellants, we would like to resolve the dispute in view of two factors, first the depreciation of the currency and second, the appreciation of price of the real estate between 21-5-2003 that is the date of judgment in Writ Petition No.2741 of 2001, and the date of offer made by the respondents at the rate of Rs.40,00,000 (forty lac) per acre. The ratio of the price on 21-5-2003 and on 27-4-2010 when the plot was offered to the petitioner is 2.22 to

1. The depreciation in money between the two intervening dates could not be less than the reverse of the ratio above mentioned. Similarly, the appreciation of property between the two intervening dates would also be not less than the above mentioned ratio. The money demanded from the appellants on 21-5-2003 if kept in a fixed deposit, would have increased at almost the same ratio as mentioned above. The appellants would not be at a loss in satisfying the demand of Rs.100,00,000 (one crore) today instead of Rs.45,00,000 (fourty five lac), on 21-5-2003. We therefore, hold that the demand of the price made by the respondent is not exorbitant. Since the delay in making the demand cannot be attributed to the appellants, therefore, we are of the view that the cushion period be allowed to the appellants in order to recompense them for their alleged monetary loss. The appellants having already paid Rs.10,25,000 (ten lac and twenty five thousand) in consequence of the order dated 26-5-2010 passed by this Court, shall within a period of 3 months i.e. by 9-9-2010, pay the respondent half of Rs. 100,00,000 (one crore) that is Rs.50,00,000 (fifty lac) after deducting Rs.10,25,000 (ten lac and twenty five thousand) they have already paid. The remaining amount of Rs.50,00,000 (fifty lac) will be paid by the appellants in two instalments. The first instalment of Rs.25,00,000 (twenty five lac) shall be paid on or before 31-3-2011. The second instalments of Rs.25,00,000 (twenty five lac) shall be paid on or before 31-12-2011. On payment of Rs.39,75,000 (thirty nine lac and seventy five thousand) on or before 9-9-2010, the appellants shall be given the vacant possession of the plot immediately. They shall however not be allowed to alienate or transfer the land in any manner whatsoever. On payment of the remaining Rs.50,00,000 (fifty lac) on or before 31-12-2011, or whenever it is earlier paid, a conveyance deed shall be executed in their favour by the C.D.A., where after the appellants shall become the absolute owners of the property in question subject to the prevalent laws. This appeal stands accepted in the above terms without any order as to costs. A.R.K./G-44/L Appeal accepted.