2010 PLP 1077 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD ATIF KHAN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION, RAHIMYAR KHAN through Tehsil Nazim and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2010 PLP 1077 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ATIF KHAN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION, RAHIMYAR KHAN through Tehsil Nazim and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 1077 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2010 PLP 1077 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 1077 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ATIF KHAN — Petitioner Versus TEHSIL MUNCIPAL ADMINISTRATION, RAHIMYAR KHAN through Tehsil Nazim and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ozair Chughtai for Petitioner.
- Sajjad Hussain Mian for Respondents Nos.1 to 3.
- Muhammad Uzair Qayyum for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
Art. 199
Constitutional petition
Re-auctioning for collection of fee on transfer of immovable property
Petitioner had challenged the re-auctioning of the fee for the transfer of immovable property on the ground that in the earlier auction for the said purpose, he was declared successful bidder
Bid of the petitioner was with the administration of the Tehsil Council and it was yet to be submitted for final approval
Just after another party made an offer, the petitioner opted to withdraw his security and he made an application to the authorities that the security be refunded to him
Security of petitioner was refunded and payment was made to him and thereafter the collection right of the fee was advertised to be re-auctioned, which auction had been challenged by the petitioner in the constitutional petition
Counsel for the petitioner had not been able to show as to how the petitioner stood aggrieved from the subsequent re-auction, when he had voluntarily withdrawn the security
Petitioner, in circumstances stood debarred from challenging the subsequent auction; as his earlier withdrawal of the security would operate as an estoppel against the petitioner
Petitioner could have easily taken part in the subsequent auction proceedings.
Judgment & Decree
SYED SHAHEEN MASUD RIZVI, J.
The petitioner has challenged the re-auctioning of the fee for the transfer of immovable property, which was to take place on 29-6-2009 on the ground that in the earlier auction for the said purpose the petitioner was declared successful bidder and that his bid for the collection for the fee on the transfer of property within the limits of Tehsil Municipal Administration, Rahimyar Khan was approved in his favour and that his bid was pending with the Tehsil Municipal Administration, Rahimyar Khan when just after two days i.e. 18-6-2009 respondent No.4, Abdul Ghaffar made an application to respondent No.2 that he will be paying Rs.3,85,00,000 as a bid for the collection of the said fee and along with that offer he submitted the call deposit amounting to Rs.38,50,
000. The bid of the petitioner was still with the administration of the Tehsil Council and it was yet to be submitted for final approval to the house. That just after the respondent No.4 made an offer the petitioner opted to withdraw his security and thus made an application to the respondents on 20-6-2009 that the security be refunded to him and, therefore, his security was refunded and the payment was made to him whereafter the collection right of the fee on the immovable property was advertised to be re-auctioned on 29-6-2009, which auction was challenged through the instant petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show as to how the petitioner stands aggrieved from the subsequent re-auction for the collection of the fee on the transfer of immovable property, as he had voluntarily withdrawn the security during the proceedings when his bid was yet to be placed before the house and had he any objection with reference to the subsequent auction and he after all wanted the acceptance of his earlier bid, he should not have withdrawn his security and should have contested the matter but he opted voluntarily to withdraw from the auction proceedings, which were yet to be finalized and got the refund of his security. Therefore, he stands de-barred from challenging the subsequent auction as his earlier withdrawal of the security operates as an estoppel against the petitioner. Furthermore, he could have easily taken part in the subsequent auction proceedings, and nothing prevented him to participate in the subsequent auction. Therefore, the writ petition being devoid of any merit is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./M-65/L Petition dismissed.