The petitioners have filed the Constitution petition with the following prayers:--
(1) Issuance of a direction to the respondents to have the sale-deeds executed and completed in favour of the petitioners pertaining to the two plots after observing necessary formalities;
(2) Respondents be restrained from demanding any further amount from the petitioners and.-they also be restrained from further transaction with any other party regarding the disputed plots, already disposed of to the petitioners.
2. The case of the petitioners is that they purchased Plots Nos.85-11/B and 85-11/AB, each measuring 25' x 25' in the Housing-cum-Industrial Area (Model Town) Scheme, Gujranwala, through an open auction which was held on 18-1-1984, at the rate of Rs,3,33,180 and Rs,2,06,802 from the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, the then Gujranwala Improvement Trust, Gujranwala. The auction was confirmed vide Memos. Nos .102/85-11/B and 105/85-11/AB, dated 4-2- 1984. The petitioners paid 1/3rd of the auction price before the fall of the hammer. It is alleged that the Improvement Trust had not done development work, i.e, sewerage, water supply, sui-gas and electricity etc., and for this the petitioners moved an application dated 26-4-1984 (Annexure-D).
Thereafter the petitioner No,1 moved another application vide diary No,2333, dated 9-2-1992 for doing the needful, and the respondents promised to develop the plots. Thereafter the petitioners were served with the demand notice dated 24-3-1992 for payment of balance price of the said plots amounting to Rs,1,37,802 and Rs,2,22,120, respectively of the two plots, and in compliance with the said notice the above-stated payment was made. The respondents did not perform their part of the agreement. The plots were not developed in accordance with the policy of the Improvement Trust and contrarily a demand was created against the petitioners for deposit of the amount including the surcharge.
3. In pursuance of the order of this Court dated 30-12-1996 the respondent filed the parawise comments. The respondent has taken the position that the petitioners had deposited 1/3rd of the auction price at the time of fall of the hammer whereas the remaining amount of. Rs,1,37,802 and Rs,2,22,120 was deposited after the delay of about eight years in 1992, while the instalments were due on 2-2-1984, 2-5-1984 and 2-8-1984. The petitioners are defaulter and certain amount is still recoverable from the petitioners. The petitioners are liable to pay the price including the surcharge.
The development work had to be completed after the payment of full price, which has not been done in this. Case. The petitioners earlier filed Writ Petition No,17518 of 1996, which was withdrawn and no assurance was given to the petitioners. The respondent has relied on the letters Nos.102/85- 11/B and 105/8511/AB, both dated 4-2-1984 addressed to the petitioners, the relevant paras of which are reproduced as under:-- "Auction of Plot No,85-11/B concluded in your name on 18-1-1984 has since been confirmed. Regular instalments in regard to the balance 2/3rd will start as under:--- {{TABLE}} 2-2-1984 Rs,1,11,060 2-5-1984 Rs,55,530 2-8-1984 Rs,,55,530 Total Rs,2,22,120
(2) Also please note that you shall have to pay 10-1/2% interest per annum in addition to the amount on each instalment. In case any instalment or any part thereof shall remain unpaid after due date, whether the same shall has been demanded or not you shall be liable to pay interest on the arrears due at the rate of 13-1/2% per annum. In case any arrears remain outstanding for a period three months after such dates, Gujranwala Improvement Trust shall be entitled to resume the land along with the buildings material, if any, standing or lying thereon and the instalment(s) already paid shall be forfeited to the Gujranwala Improvement Trust.
(3) Please also be informed that you have to execute the sale agreement for sale at your expenses within stipulated period of two months.
(Sd.)
(Muhammad Aslam Bhatti)
Secretary Improvement Trust, Gujranwala."
4. The learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the petitioners are entitled for the completion of the sale-deed and demand of the respondents for payment of surcharge is illegal and no development work has been completed at the site.
5. Whether the petitioners have paid the amount in accordance with the time framework/schedule given in the letter dated 4-2-1984 and the development work was to be completed by the respondents on payment of 1/3rd of the auction price or full price, and whether the respondent promised and asked the petitioners to keep quiet for some time as alleged by the petitioners in the writ petition and whether some assurance had been given by the respondents to the petitioners at the time of withdrawal of the earlier Writ Petition No,17518 of 1996, are the facts which need an elaborate inquiry. The petitioners have raised construction on the site. In this view of the matter, the disputed questions cannot be resolved by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction.
' Since the disputed questions of facts are involved regarding fulfillment of terms and conditions of the agreement, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court in exercise of extraordinary writ jurisdiction. It is observed that the petitioner may approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. The petition is disposed of with above observation. The parties to bear their own costs.