AIMR HANI MUSLIM, J. --- The Petitioner claims to be the transferee Of Plot No. LT-291, Sector-8, KDA Scheme No. 41, Surjani Township, Karachi, which plot he claims to have purchased from the original allottee Shahid Mansoor of. M/s. Shahid Rubber Industries. The record reveals that the said Shahid Mansoor was allotted the said plot by the then KDA on 25.5.1993 on payment of RS. 100,000/-, which payment was deposited by such original allottee on 30.5.1993. The KDA issued the allotment order, site plan and possession order whereafter the Petitioner through attorney purchased the subject plot from Shahid Mansoor.
2. On 26.10.1993 the Petitioner applied for pre- lease transfer. The record further reveals that such permission was granted and the Petitioner paid requisite amount/i.e for transfer. After the transfer of the plot on 21.11.1993 the Petitioner received a letter from the KDA in which it was stated that the plot in question was cancelled on account of non-deposit of. Occupancy value and it was observed that the paid challan of the Bank was forged document and the amount was never deposited by the original allottee with the relevant bank.
3. The Petitioner further pleaded that on 25.11.1993 and 27.11.1993, he approached the office of the KDA. Since he did not receive any response he addressed a letter on 28.11.2993 to the KDA in which he has sought interview to explain his position. On 30.11.1993 the KDA issued a public notice in Daily Dawn requesting the allottees of industrial plots in Surjai Town to pay the occupancy value of the plot which was allotted to them and were cancelled for want of payment of occupancy value. This public notice also contained the plot, which is subject-matter of these proceedings. The public notice, besides the plot number, also mentions the names of the original allottees, including the Petitioner's name. After this public notice, the Petitioner filed the present proceedings in this Court on 9.12.1993 and subsequent thereto also addressed a letter:on 11.12.1993 to the Director General, KDA, in which the Petitioner stated that he is willing to deposit the occupancy value of the plot in question, which letter was un-responded.
4. On 14.2.1995 the present Petition was admitted and by consent status-quo was ordered to be maintained by the KDA subject to deposit of the amount demanded by the KDA. The record shows that in compliance of the. Order dated 14.2.1995, the Petitioner deposited the amount on 21.2.1995 with the Nazir of this Court. This Petition was disposed of vide order dated 13.5.1997 remanding the matter to the Director General, KDA, for decision on merits after hearing the Petitioner.
5. Order of this Court dated 13.5.1997 disposing of the Petition was appealed against by the Petitioner and the Honourable Supreme Court vide its Judgment dated 5.6.2003 passed in Civil Appeal No. 516 of 1998 set aside the order dated 13.5.1997 and remanded the matter to this Court for deciding the matter on merits in accordance with law.
6. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the forgery, if any, committed by the original allottee was condoned by the public notice dated 30.11.1993 and in identical matters a number of other industrial plots which were cancelled on this ground were restored to the allottees on payment of their occupancy value. According to the learned Counsel, the Petitioner however was singled out though he was willing to make payment but it was not accepted by the KDA for extraneous considerations.
7. As against this, Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, learned Counsel for City District Government submitted that he cannot make a categorical statement as to whether the plots which were cancelled and listed in the public notice dated 30.11.1993 were restored to the original allottees. He further submits that since the original allottee has committed forgery, no relief can be granted in these proceedings.
8. We have heard the learned Counsel and have perused the record. Once by public notice dated 30.11.1993 issued by the KDA itself, it implies that if has opted to condone such forgery. Now cannot take a somersault by disputing the claim on this ground of non-payment of occupancy value of the plot. The petitioner, a transferee is also entitled to restoration of the allotment. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed submits that he does not know the status of plot as the matter pertains to the year 1993. We are not perused even by this argument as there was a injunction operative against the KDA and the KDA was duty bound to retain this plot and in the given circumstances even after the disposal of the Petition on 13.5.1997, the KDA could not dispose of the plot unilaterally having notice of the proceedings before the Honourable Supreme Court. We are informed that even the Honourable Supreme Court has also passed restraining orders against the KDA during hearing of the appeal.
9. Moreover, the stand taken in the comments by the KDA is not adverse to the interest of the Petitioner as pleaded in the petition. In paragraph 20 of the Petition in which it has been specifically pleaded that the Petitioner is entitled to get the plot restored on payment of the occupancy amount, has not been disputed by the KDA in its comments. Linder these circumstances, this is a fit case where order of cancellation of the subject plot passed by the KDA warrants to be set aside.
We, therefore, allow this Petition directing the KDA to restore the allotment of the plot in question.
The amount deposited by the Petitioner with Nazir be disbursed to the KDA/City District Government. However, the Petitioner shall pay any further lawful dues of the City District Government.