1997 PLP 846 (CLC)

Manzur‑ul‑Haq for Plaintiff. Ashiq Raza for A.‑G., Sindh for Defendants Nos. l to

3. Nemo for Defendant NoA. The plaintiffs society was allotted a piece of land in Scheme No.33 by defendant No.l The rate of outer development charges as notified by Government of Sindh in Land Utilisation Department in the Sindh Government Notification dated 22‑6‑1971 vide para. 14 of the Notification was fixed at Rs.3 per sq. yard for residential plots. By another Notification dated 3rd March, 1975, Government of Sindh, Land Utilization Department amended para. 14 of the Notification thereby deciding that outer development of the land shall be through the K.D.A. in accordance with terms and conditions prescribed by the Authority for which the tenant shall pay charges based on the actual expenditure at such rates as are fixed by the Authority. It is the grievance of the plaintiffs that by a public notice published in daily 'Dawn', dated 19th November, 1992,. Deputy Commissioner, Karachi East acting on behalf of the Provincial Government has. raised a demand of Rs.21,78,000 against the plaintiffs Society towards the cost of outer development charges payable by the said Society. Plaintiffs have impugned this demand as being illegal, unwarranted and unreasonable and prayer for an injunction from taking any action in furtherance of the said notice.

2. A counter‑affidavit has been filed on behalf of K.D.A. denying and refuting various allegations made in the plaint as well as the accompanying affidavit. Parawise written statement also been filed by the defendants.

3. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, it would appear that the outer development charges fixed in 1971 were revised in 1975 and from the arguments advanced at the bar it appears that the demand has been calculated at the rate of Rs.20 per sq. yard for residential plots to be developed by K.D.A. as prescribed in the terms and conditions of the initial grant. Learned counsel insists that K.D.A. could not revise the development charges fixed in 1971 and that the demand placed against the plaintiffs, is totally unreasonable and unwarranted by the circumstances. It is a matter of common knowledge that the cost of life including the cost of development, machinery equipment, labour charges, etc. has increased manifold with the passage of time. For the limited purpose of temporary injunction, it is difficult to say at this stage that the demand is unwarranted, unreasonable or not supported by the authority vested in. the defendants. It would rather be ridiculous to say that the defendants including K.D.A. may be compelled to charge outer development charges at the rate fixed 25 years back. On this account alone there is hardly any prima facie case in favour of the plaintiffs which must fail. '

4. Even otherwise the demand having been made by the defendants relating to a certain amount no irreparable loss is likely to occur if the proposed action is not restrained by way of an injunction order. In case the plaintiffs Society succeeds at the final stage of the suit the amount so paid can be recovered, adjusted and accounted for. Even the balance of convenience would lean in favour of the defendants rather than the plaintiffs as fotal development of K.D.A. Scheme No.33 would come to a standstill, if the recovery of development charges is stayed at this stage.

5. For these reasons, I find no merit in this application which must fail and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./S‑38/K Application dismissed.