CLC 2006

2006 PLP 373 (CLC)

Messrs AL-MEHRAN BUILDERS through Attorney — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through District Coordinating Officer — Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Karachi
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2006 PLP 373 (CLC)
Forum / Court Karachi
Bench Members N/A
Parties Messrs AL-MEHRAN BUILDERS through Attorney — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through District Coordinating Officer — Respondent
Primary Law Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance (III of 2001)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 373 (CLC)?

This judgment primarily cites: Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance (III of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 373 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 373 (CLC) (Messrs AL-MEHRAN BUILDERS through Attorney — Petitioner Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through District Coordinating Officer — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance (III of 2001)

Representation

  • Abdul Hafeez Pirzada along with Abdul Sattar Pirzada, Rana Ikramullah, Hisamuddin Qazi for Petitioner.
  • Manzoor Ahmed for Respondent.

Headnotes / Summary

S. 3

Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199

Constitutional petition

Allotments of property, cancellation of

Contention of petitioner was that vested right to allotment of property had matured in his favour and non-payment of balance price of 50% was not on account of any fault on his part

Authorities urged that property had been allotted to petitioner at a price below the market rate and his right stood cancelled under Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2001

Validity

Cancellation of allotment under the Ordinance, could have effect only upon a finding of the Committee to the effect that property was allotted to petitioner below the market rate

Section 3 of Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2001 provided that allotment at rates lower than market value or in violation of a ban with effect from, 1-1-1985, would stand cancelled, cancellation would not lead to the conclusion that allottee retained no right or interest with respect to property

Petitioner was still entitled to acquire title to property upon payment of price determined by Committee within time specified by it

If petitioner would deposit amount required by Committee, respondent would execute' an appropriate lease in his favour.

Judgment & Decree

SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.

Mr. Pirzada contended that vested right to' allotment of the property had matured in the petitioner's favour and non-payment of the balance price of 50% was not on account of any fault of the petitioner. On the other hand, Mr. Manzoor Ahmed urged that the property had been allotted to the petitioner at a price below the market rate and his right stood cancelled under Sindh Ordinance III of 2001. Be that as it may, Mr. Pirzada seems to be right in contending that cancellation of allotment under the aforesaid Ordinance can have effect only upon a finding of the Committee to the effect that the property was allotted to the petitioner below the market price. Moreover, while section 3 of the Ordinance declares that the allotment at rates lower than the market value or in violation of a ban with effect from 1-1-1985 shall stand cancelled, the cancellation does not lead to the conclusion that the allottee retained no right or interest with respect to the property. On the other hand, as has been observed by this Court, he is still entitled to acquire title to the property upon payment of the price determined by the Committee within the time specified by it. In the above circumstances, both learned counsel agreed that the petitioner will deposit the outstanding 50% of the original price with the Nazir of this Court within two weeks from today and the parties will approach the appropriate Committee within the same period. The Committee will thereafter proceed to determine the market value of the property at the time of allotment within three months and in case it is found that the property was allotted at a rate below the market price, then the authority would issue the challan of the difference amount. In case the petitioner deposits the amount required by the Committee, the respondent will execute an appropriate lease in his favour. The petition stands disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./A-5/K????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.