1. ' The petitioner by filing this petition has challenged the public notices published in the newspaper by which the petitioner was asked to pay the differential amount fixed by the Committee appointed by the Goverment of Sindh under section 4(2) of the Sindh Government Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000.
2. ' The facts necessary for disposal of the petition are that the petitioner is the allottee of Plot No,GC- 1, Block-5, KDA Scheme No,5, Clifton, Karachi, measuring 4,840 square yards. The plot was cancelled in the year 1990, which was challenged by way of filing of C.P. No,1311 of 1990, which was allowed on 2-9-2003 and the cancellation was set aside. It was further pleaded in the petition that the respondent No,1 published notice in the newspapers and amongst other, the petitioner was called upon to pay erroneous amount of Rs,127,34,000 as additional/different price of the land.
3. ' The respondent No,1 filed counter-affidavit and raised technical objection that without filing departmental appeal the petition is not maintainable. The respondent No,1 has not denied the transfer of land to the petitioner. The deponent has shown his ignorance regarding the order passed in C.P. No,1131 of 1990 and has stated that the matter was involved in Suits bearing Nos.392/1990, 424/1990 and 433/1990 and the present status of plots as per record stands cancelled. It was further stated that the plot in question was included in the list by mistake and the cancellation order issued on 16-8-1990 is still intact as per record of this office.
4. ' Mr. Abdul Hafeez Pirzada, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that after the order dated 2- 9-2003 the KDA has not taken any action and before issuance of public notice for payment neither any notices were served upon the petitioner nor any hearing was afforded to the petitioner and the differential amount was determined without allowing adjustment of the cost of land already paid.
5. He submits that since the determination of differential amount is without hearing the same is not sustainable under the law.
6. ' Mr. Ahmed Pirzada, the learned Additional Advocate-General submits that the law does not provide any right of hearing before determination of the differential amount. He further submits that the petitioner is not claiming 'right of hearing under any statute, but under the principle of natural justice and has to show what prejudice has been caused to it due to non-hearing. He further submits that since the allotment was cancelled prior to promulgation of the Ordinance III of 2001; the said law is not applicable and the cancellation cannot be regularized under the provisions of Ordinance III of 2001.
7. ' Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, the learned counsel for the respondent No,1 states that the plot was cancelled before the promulgation of Ordinance 3 of 2001 and was wrongly included in the list. He submits that even otherwise, the petitioner has not paid the differential amount in terms of publication and the cancellation attained finality.
8. ' After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, the learned A.A.-G. And the learned counsel for the respondent No,1, it is seen that sections 3 and 4 of Ordinance III of 2001 deal with cancellation of allotments, which have been made at the rate lower than market value in violation of the law or ban from 1-1-1985 shall stand cancelled. Subsection (2) of section 4 provides that where the Committee after making such inquiry as deemed fit is satisfied that a loss has occurred to the Government, this can call upon person concerned to pay such amount within the specified period.
9. While the order was being dictated Mr. Manzoor pointed out that this particular plot has been withdrawn from the scheme. We fail to understand this argument because in the advertisement and the website or the City District Government Karachi this plot has been mentioned by name and the total amount recoverable has also been mentioned and the petitioner along with other persons have been called upon to pay the differential amount or plot will be cancelled. It is an admitted fact that so far no cancellation order has been passed although the contention of the learned A.A.-G. Is that the plot stands cancelled under section 3 of the Ordinance III of 200E This contention of the learned A.A.-G. Has no force. In the reported,case of Commanding Officer NLC v.
10. Raza Enterprises (2003 CLC 719) the learned Division Bench of this Court has held that even if the allotment is found to be in violation of law or a ban on allotment the Committee is still empowered to determine the amount of loss caused to the Government and call upon the person concerned to pay such amount within a specified time. It, therefore,- appears that even in such cases the allotment is not to be treated as void ab initio, but the allottee can acquire ownership rights after payment of loss caused to the Government. The only grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he was not heard and has not been given computation of differential amount, which- is required to be paid by him and has not been given an opportunity to rebut the same.
11. Order passed by judicial or administrative authority effecting the person or property cannot be passed C without affording an opportunity of hearing. The provisions of Ordinance, 2000 contains nothing to dispense with the right of hearing and issuance of notice before determination of differential amount and unless the issuance of notice -or right of hearing was taken away by statutory provisions the same has to be read as the part of every statute as consistently held by D the Superior Courts Furthermore defined in Chambers Dictionary means an act or the process of asking for information. The process of asking for E information includes asking of information from affected person also.
12. ' From the perusal of pages 57 and 79, it is seen that the plot in question measuring 4,840 square yards was regularized subject to payment and the auction price of the plot has been estimated at Rs,2631 the total of which comes to Rs,127,34,040, which has been shown as differential cost of land and required to be paid by the petitioner. This computation will be treated as notice to the petitioner and they are required to file objections against such computation within one month from the date of this order. The parties may advance all arguments before the Committee including the applicability of Ordinance III of 2001 and the adjustment of any amount already paid by the petitioner. The respondents are directed to pass order in accordance with law within one month of such receipt after giving the petitioner an opportunity of being heard: with these directions, this petition is disposed of with no order as to cost.