1. 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.
2. 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