2012 PLP 447 (CLC)
IFTIKHAR MEHMOOD BUTT — Appellant Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' HOUSING FOUNDATION through Director General/Chairman and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 447 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Islamabad |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | IFTIKHAR MEHMOOD BUTT — Appellant Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' HOUSING FOUNDATION through Director General/Chairman and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 447 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 447 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Islamabad bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 447 (CLC) (IFTIKHAR MEHMOOD BUTT — Appellant Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES' HOUSING FOUNDATION through Director General/Chairman and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Wajid Ali Gillani for Respondent No.1.
- Ms. Shaheena Akbar for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 49
Specific Relief Act, (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54
Suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction
Allotment of plot, cancellation of
Employee of Capital Development Authority (CDA) was allotted a plot but said allotment was cancelled as he had already been allotted a plot in the past
Allottee with the contention that he had deposited whole of the sale consideration and lease agreement as well as registered deed were executed in his favour, filed suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction which was dismissed by Trial Court and Appellate Court below
Allottee was earlier allotted a plot and he had submitted a false affidavit for the allotment of the second plot when according to the rules he was not entitled for the second allotment
Allotment in favour of allottee was provisional and the same had not conferred any right upon him
Both Courts below had properly appreciated the legal as well as factual position
Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J.
This judgment is directed to dispose of R.S.A. No.9 of 2009.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant was an employee of CDA. He was allotted Plot bearing No.699, measuring 311 sq. yards, situated in Sector I-8/3, Islamabad vide order dated 24-2-1991. According to the appellant, he had deposited whole of the sale consideration; lease agreement as well as registered deed were executed in his favour. The said allotment was, however, cancelled vide letter dated 2-2-1994 for the reason that the appellant had already been allotted Plot No.279, Sector 1-10/2, Islamabad.
3. The appellant/plaintiff feeling aggrieved of the said cancellation order, filed suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction to the effect that the cancellation letter dated 2-2-1994 was illegal, void and liable to cancellation, as according to him , he was owner of the suit plot.
4. The defendants were summoned. Respondent/defendant No.1 was proceeded against ex parte, whereas, respondent/defendant No.2 filed written statement. Issues were framed, but thereafter nobody appeared on behalf of respondent/defendant No.2, therefore, respondent/ defendant No.2 was also proceeded against ex parte. Ex parte evidence of the appellant/plaintiff was recorded, whereas, arguments were addressed by both the counsel and the suit was, however, dismissed vide judgment dated 19-9-2003 by the learned Civil Judge 1st Class, Islamabad. Appeal against the same was filed before the District Judge, Islamabad, which was dismissed vide judgment dated 13-5-2004 and now the present 2nd appeal against the same order.
5. I have heard the appellant, in person, learned counsel for the respondents and have also perused the record.
6. Admitted position, in the present case, is that the appellant was earlier allotted Plot No.279, Sector 1-10/2, Islamabad and he had submitted a false affidavit for the allotment of 2nd plot. According to the rules, he was not entitled for the allotment of 2nd plot. Allotment in favour of the appellant was provisional and the same had not conferred any right upon the appellant. Both the Courts below had properly appreciated the legal as well as factual position.
7. Finding no force, in this appeal, the same is hereby dismissed, with no order as to costs. M.W.A./7/Isl. Appeal dismissed.