1. SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.--- The petitioners had approached this Court contending that they had deposited an amount of Rs.2.00 million for allotment of 100 acres of land way back in 1987 but the planning of the scheme and other formalities for allotment were not being finalized. Having waited in vain for several years they approached this court seeking directions that the land be allotted.
2. Subsequently, however, it appeared that: the respondent No. 2 had transferred the land to respondent No. 3 and consequently the petitioners amended the petition impleading respondent No. 3 and seeking a direction regarding finalization of the scheme within a specified time. The respondent No. 2 in their parawise comments have admitted receipt of amount stated to have been deposited as "earnest money" but claimed that the petitioners were not entitled to lease of the land.
3. It appears that in the circumstances the petitioners perhaps that they would be contained with refund- of the amount deposited but a question arose whether the refund was to be made by the respondent No. 2 or respondent- No. 3. The liability to refund having been acknowledged this Court vide order dated 28.3.2000 directed the learned A.A.G. Appearing for respondent No. 1 to contact both the agencies and get the matter settled.
4. On 27.3.2001 the Additional Advocate General informed the Court that the matter had been decided by the Secretary Housing and Town Planning Department of the respondent No. 1 and it was found that the respondent No. 2 was liable to refund the amount. This Court expressed anguish at the fact that despite eight months no refund has been made and even no appearance had ben made in Court on that date.
5. Thereafter the matter was adjourned from time to time but by an order dated. 2.9.2003 passed in presence of Dr. Kazi Khalid A.I and Syed Jamil Ahmad we granted a final opportunity to the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 to settle the petitioners' claim and fix the matter for hearing today.
6. Mr. S. Jamil Ahmad attempted to request for adjournment for even today but Mr. Muhammad Riaz Abbasi, learned counsel for the petitioners, strongly resisted the same contending that further adjournment might amount to abuse of process of law. In the circumstances of the case we have no option but to agree with him. It is ridiculous on the part of respondent No. 2 to say the least to usurp the money of citizens kept in trust and keep on refusing payment of acknowledge liability occurred more than sixteen years ago and despite several orders of this Court. In the circumstances we have no option but to direct the Official Assignee of this Court to attach the immovable properties of the KDA Wing of the City District Government, Karachi unless a cheque is deposited in Court within thirty (30) days from today. In case the deposit is not made within the said period of thirty (30) days the order of attachment Shall become effective immediately and the respondent No. 2 would also be further liable to pay compensation at the rate of 14% per annum for any delayed payment.
7. The petition stands disposed of. .