' SYED SAKHI HUSSAIN BOKHARI, J.---Relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that Haji Muhammad Ali, respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.75,00,000 with compensation/profit against the appellant/ defendant and stated that defendant used to arrange collection of tax on transfer of immovable property and on 28-4-1991 issued proclamation for auction of the said tax for the financial year 1991-92 (from 1-7-1991 to 30-6-1992) and contractor had to collect/realize and receive 2.50% tax on transfer of immovable property. The plaintiff was highest bidder, therefore, he obtained contract. The plaintiff maintained that Chak No.337/JB and Chak No.296/JB were not within the jurisdiction of Municipal Committee, Gojra, but after auction and formal execution of contract documents, Zila Council/defendant issued N.O.C. On 11-5-1991 and 21-5-1991 for the exclusion of said villages (Chak No.337/JB and Chak No.296/JB) from the limits of Zila Council and their inclusion in Municipal Committee, Gojra. Also that said villages were quite adjacent to the Municipal limits of Municipal Committee, Gojra and were rapidly coming under the residential and commercial sites, therefore, 1/3 transactions had been made in the said two villages. The plaintiff stated that Government of Punjab issued notification dated 9-5-1991 for the exemption of Zila Council tax on transfer of immovable property categorizing Tamleek up to 24 acres in favour of legal heirs, exchange of agricultural land up to 25 acres and alienation in favour of Central and Provincial Governments and after receiving said letter defendant made request to Government of Punjab on its own accord through Letters Nos.1697/TO dated 22-5-1991 and 1991/TO dated 8-6-1991 for recalling aforesaid notification and stated that contract for the previous year (1990-91) was for Rs.63,00,000 whereas for the years 1991-92 it was for Rs.1.25 crores and if it came into the knowledge of contractor he would refuse to act upon the contract or ask for rebate but Government did not withdraw said notification. Also that after taking the charge on 1-7-1991 he came to know about the aforesaid notification and that two villages (Chak No.337/JB and Chak No.296/JB) had been excluded from the territorial jurisdiction by issuing N.O.C. To the Municipal Committee, Gojra and he asked defendant to reduce the amount of contract proportionately. He submitted application before Government of Punjab for reducing amount of contract and rebate.
Also that defendant constituted a sub-committee and the sub-committee submitted its report to defendant that plaintiff was entitled to rebate and Chairman vide Letter No.2044 dated 8-6-1992 requested the Government of Punjab for grant of rebate and annexed the data supplied by Revenue Department, in which loss to the plaintiff during 10 months was assessed at Rs.73,00,000 and Government of Punjab issued notification dated 14-7-1992 for the grant of rebate of Rs.45,00,000 and to reduce amount of contract from Rs.1 crore 25 lacs to Rs.80 lacs. The plaintiff asked the defendant for the rebate of Rs.45,00,000 after notification dated 14-7-1992 but some members of the Zila Council who were inimical towards him opposed his request whereupon Chairman, Zila Council asked Government to withdraw notification dated 14-7-1992 for the time being but Government of Punjab again vide notification dated 5-9-1992 clarified that plaintiff was entitled for rebate. The plaintiff applied to defendant for the release/refund of rebate money (Rs.45 lacs) but the same was not paid in him, therefore, he was constrained to file suit. He also claimed Rs.30,00,000 as damages (total Rs.75,00,000). The defendant mentioned in written statement that contract was given to plaintiff and that Chak No.337/JB and Chak No.296/JB were included in the contract but later on the same were excluded from the territorial jurisdiction of Zila Council but plaintiff did not suffer any loss due to the same. The defendant admitted that subcommittee was constituted but explained that members of sub-committee had submitted report in collusion with plaintiff. On the pleadings of the parties following issues were framed:-- ' ISSUES:
(1) Whether the plaintiff has no cause of action and locus standi to file this suit? OPD.
(2) Whether the suit is premature and defective? OPD
(3) Whether the plaintiff cannot claim interest pursuant to the decision of Federal Shariat Court?
OPD
(4) Whether the suit is barred by section 56 of the Specific Relief Act? OPD (4-A) Whether the plaintiff is estopped to file the present suit in view of Condition No.17 as stated in P.O. No.5 of the amended written statement? OPD (4-B) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is not maintainable in view of the Preliminary Objection No.6 of the amended written statement? OPD (4-C) Whether the suit of the plaintiff is incompetent due to the Objection No.7 raised in the amended written statement? OPD
(5) Whether the defendant is liable for the payment of Rs.45 lacs on account of rebate as directed by the Government together with the interest as claimed? OPP
(6) Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages to the tune of Rs.30 lacs as prayed for? OPP
(7) Relief.
' The parties adduced evidence in support of their respective claims and after hearing the parties, learned trial Court decreed the suit to the extent of Rs.45,00,000 (the rebate amount) with interest and suit regarding damages (Rs.30,00,000) was dismissed vide judgment dated 18-6-1996. Hence, this appeal.
2. We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
' As mentioned above Haji Muhammad Ali plaintiff/respondent obtained contract from the appellant/ defendant regarding collection of tax on transfer of immovable property for the financial year 1991-92 (from 1-7-1991 to 30-7-1992) for Rs.1 crore 25 lacs. The case of plaintiff/respondent is that after execution of contract documents Zila Council issued N.O.0 for the exclusion of Chak No.337/JB and Chak No.296/JB from the limits of Zila Council and their inclusion in the limits of Municipal Committee, Gojra, therefore, he suffered loss, hence he was entitled to get rebate from the appellant/defendant. Also that appellant constituted as sub-committee for the said purpose and sub-committee had submitted report in his favour whereupon Chairman, Zila Council (defendant/ appellant) requested the Government for granting him rebate and Government of Punjab accordingly allowed him rebate of Rs.45 lacs. Admittedly respondent obtained contract from appellant. It is clear from the letter dated 18-6-1992 (Exh. D.W .1/P-1) that Chairman, Zila Council requested the Secretary, Government of Punjab Local Government and Rural Department, Lahore that plaintiff/respondent be granted rebate to the extent as deemed proper on the basis of report submitted by sub-committee. The report of sub-committee is Exh.P.W.2/1 according to which sub-committee found that plaintiff/contractor was entitled to rebate. There is nothing on record to show that report of sub-committee was based on mala fide-.
So in the circumstances of the case we find that appellant is estopped to challenge the order of Government of Punjab regarding rebate given to the plaintiff/respondent. Even otherwise appellant/defendant has failed to produce any worthwhile evidence in support of its version. In these circumstances we find that learned trial Court had rightly decided Issues Nos.4-A to 4-C and 5 and findings of learned trial Court on these issues are affirmed. Findings of learned trial Court on other issues have not been challenged. Learned trial Court has rightly decreed the suit brought by respondent. The impugned judgment is just and proper. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff submits that respondent has already received Rs.45,00,000 and nothing is outstanding against the appellant and that he would not claim future interest. There is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment, therefore, there is no justification to set aside the same.
4. The upshot of the above discussion is that this appeal has no force and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.