1. ' NADEEM AZHAR SIDDIQI, J.---The plaintiff has filed the suit for declaration and permanent injunction and claims that he is a bona fide grantee of an area of 8-00 acres of land of Plot Nos. 17 and 18, Phase II, K-28, Trans Lyari Quarters, Karachi, situated on main Hawksbay Road, Karachi,.
2. Against payment of Rs,9,68,000. It is further stated that the defendant No, 1 was pleased to accommodate the plaintiff 4-00 acres of land situated on Plot No,18, Phase II, K-28, Trans Lyari Quarters, Karachi, to Plot No,P-III, Phase I, K-28, Trans Lyari Quarters, Karachi. It is further pleaded that the Government of Sindh promulgated Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000 (hereinafter referred to as the said Ordinance III of 2001) whereby all allotments, conversions and exchanges of State land obtained or granted for residential, commercial or industrial purpose at rates lower than the market value in violation of law or ban from January 1, 1985, including subsequent transactions in respect thereof, stood cancelled and the allotment granted in favour of the original allotee i,e, plaintiff stood cancelled under Ordinance III of 2001. The Defendant No,1 vide his letter dated 30-10-2003 confirmed that the plaintiff was allottee of 4-00 acres of land on Plot No,18, K-28, Trans Lyari, Phase II, Hawksbay Road, Karachi, and offered the same plot on payment of differential amount as settled by the Committee set up under Ordinance III of 2001. The plaintiff informed Defendant No,1 that he is ready and willing to pay necessary differential value of land and all Government dues and charges in view of reallocation of land at the rate prescribed by the Committee. The Defendant No,1 after approving reallocation prepared a summary for approval from the competent authority and thereafter the plaintiff has received no further instructions/challans from the Defendant No,1 and the summary is still pending approval from the competent authority. The plaintiff has also apprehended that the defendant No,1 in collusion with other defendants would dispose of Plot No,18, K-28, Trans Lyari, Phase II, Hawksbay Road, Karachi, which will seriously prejudce the plaintiff's case for reallocation.
3. The plaintiff has prayed as under:--
(A) Declare that the plaintiff is the true and lawful owner of industrial plot bearing No, Plot No,18 in K-28, Trans Lyari, Phase II, Hawksbay Road, Karachi, admeasuring 4 acres.
(B) Direct the defendant No,1 to issues necessary challans/documents and accept the necessary fees/amount prescribed under Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellations of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance 2000 in respect of Plot bearing No,18 in K-28, Trans Lyari, Phase II, Hawksbay Road, Karachi, admeasuring 4 acres as offered to them vide letter dated 30-10-2003.
(C) Grant permanent injunction restraining defendant No,1 their subordinates, workers, officers person/(s) acting under or through them restraining them from allotting, negotiating, selling; encumbering or creating any third party rights/interest in the said land admeasuring 4 acres situated on Plot No,181n K-28, Trans Lyari, Phase II, Hawksbay Road, Karachi till final disposal of the case.
(D) Grant permanent injunction restraining defendants Nos.2 to 6, their subordinates, workers, officer, person/(s) acting under or through them restraining them from causing transfer/mutation in the Revenue Records and from registering any documents/deed in favour of any person/party other than the Plaintiff regarding the suit property bearing Plot No,18 in K-28, Trans Lyari, Phase II, Hawksbay Road, Karachi till final disposal of the case.
(E) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the circumstances of the case.
(F) Cost of the suit.
4. ' After service of summons the defendants Nos. 1 to 5 have filed their joint written statement. In the written-statement the defendants have not denied the allotment of land to the plaintiff. However, it was submitted that at the time of allotment the value of the land was not less than Rs,10,00,000 per acre which today is more than Rs,60,00,000 per acre. From the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed/adopted:--
(1) Whether the failure of the defendant to issue challan under Ordinance III of 2001 after the acceptance of differential amount in respect of the suit land is illegal and without jurisdiction?
(2) Whether the approval of Chief Minister as condition precedent is in violation of the Ordinance III of 2001?
(3) Whether the suit is not maintainable?
(4) What should the decree be?
5. ' On 14-11-2005 it was ordered that since both the parties are agreed that no evidence is required the matter can be decided on the basis of material evidence available on record.
6. ' ISSUE NOS. 1 AND 2: ' Since both these issues are interconnected I deal them together.
7. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the plaintiff who at the very outset submits that he is only pressing prayer clause (B) of the plaint. Mr.Abid S. Zuberi, learned counsel for the plaintiff, has submitted that the plaintiff has not ceased his right in the property upon promulgation of Ordinance III of 2001 and the plaintiff has a right to get the allotment of land, regularized after making payment as determined by the committee constituted under the provisions of Ordinance and referred to reported case of the Commanding Officer, National Logistic Cell and another v.
8. Raza Enterprises and others 2003 CLC 719. The learned Division Bench of this Court while dealing similar arguments has held as under:-- "In view of above, it is difficult to subscribe to the proposition that the respondent No,1 stood divested of all interests in the property upon mere promulgation of the Ordinance. The law appears to confer upon him the right to acquire ownership rights and valid title to the property after having made up the losses sustained by the Government. We are, therefore, unable to be persuaded by the contention that the respondent No,1 lost all interests in the property."
9. From The above reported case it is clear that by mere promulgation of Ordinance III of 2001 the plaintiff has not lost his right and interest in the property and the plaintiff has the right to acquire the ownership rights and valid title after making payment of the differential amount to the Government as determined by the committee under the provisions of Ordinance III of 2001.
10. ' The learned counsel for the plaintiff has referred Annexure `P/12' of the plaint, which is a letter issued by Secretary to Government of Sindh, Land Utilization Department, to the plaintiff, operating part of which is read as under:-- "4. Now, therefore, in pursuance of section 4(2) of the said Ordinance, the loss caused to public exchequer has been worked out by the Committee appointed under section 4(1) of the said Ordinance as Rs,13,16,000 in respect of 4-00 acres situated at plot No,18, K-28 Trans Lyari Phase I, Karachi, for industrial purposes and the same said land is hereby offered to you (Mr. Muhammad Imran son of Abdul Aziz) for the said payment. In case you are agreeable to pay the same, you are to submit such acceptance as indicated below to the undersigned within 15 days of receiving this letter, so that the said allotment order may be partially regularized, as per provision of section 5 of the said Ordinance, after payment of differential malkano to cover loss caused to the Government.
11. In case of failure, necessary instructions will be issued to the Executive District Officer (Revenue), to take possession of land along with structures, if any, thereon."
12. ' Mr. Abid S. Zuberi further submits that the plaintiff has accepted the offer and has referred to the same document, which contains the acceptance of the plaintiff. He further pointed out Annexure 'P/13' which is a summary prepared for the Chief Minister for his consent to the payment of differential amount. He submits that' these documents have not been disputed in the written- statement. Mr. Abid S. Zuberi submits that under the scheme of law the Chief Minister has no power or authority to give consent or approval of the offer made by the Committee and delaying the matter on this pretext is illegal. He further submits that in terms of section 4(2) of Ordinance III of 2001 once the Committee decides 'the market value the only thing left is to made offer to the concerned party and once acceptance is given challans are to be issued without any delay. In support of his contention the learned counsel for the plaintiff has relied upon the case of Messrs Apparels (Pvt.) Limited v. The Member Land Utilization Department and another 2005 YLR 1921 wherein it has been held as under:-- "We have considered the submissions of the two sides and the law and are of the considered view that after committee decides the market price under section 4(2) of the Ordinance III of 2001 nothing is left to be done except the offer to be made to the party concerned and once the acceptance is received challans are to be issued and the payment is to be made by the claimant/party concerned. The function of determination of the market price is entrusted to the committee under the provisions of the said Ordinance. It does not attach any condition for subsequent sanction or approval by any other authority. It is settled law that the rule making power is to be exercised for furtherance of the purpose of the statute but cannot be exercised in a manner as would interfere with the powers or functions of the authority constituted under main statute or curtail the same."
13. From the above cited case there is left no controversy that under the provisions of Ordinance III of 2001 the Chief Minister has no role to play and approval or consent of the Chief Minister is not required. Once the plaintiff has accepted the offer the Defendant No,1 is bound to issue challan to the plaintiff in respect of differential amount and the issuance of challan cannot be delayed on the pretext of non-approval of summary from the Chief Minister. The sending of summary to Chief Minister for his approval or consent is illegal and without jurisdiction and in violation of the provisions of Ordinance III of 2001.
14. ' ISSUES NOS.3 AND 4: ' In view of above the suit of the plaintiff is decreed in terms of prayer clause (b) of the suit. The defendant No,1 is directed to issue challan of differential amount to the plaintiff in respect of land mentioned in prayer clause (b) of the plaint. Office is directed to prepare the decree.