' Through this petition the petitioner claims the following reliefs:--
(i) "Declaration to the effect that impugned action of the respondents of not issuing challan for the differential amount/outstanding dues consequently not regularizing the subject property in favour of the petitioner firm namely, K.M. Enterprises is arbitrary, illegal and unlawful.
(ii) Direction to the respondents to issue challan for the differential amount/outstanding dues and regularize the subject property in favour of the petitioner firm namely, K.M. Enterprises.
(iii) Cost of the petition.
(iv) Any other and better relief in the circumstances of the case may also be granted to the petitioner.
2. The facts as they appear from the pleadings of the parties are that the predecessor of the petitioner was allotted plots bearing Nos. 45 and 46. Sector 22, Korangi Industrial Area, Karachi.
These plots were allotted somewhere on 19, March 1990 and the predecessors of the petitioner were put in possession of the plots. The C.D.G.K., the then K.D.A. At the relevant time had also issued challan of non-utilization fee and mutation fee which were paid beside the allotment fee. The petitioner purchased the said plots from their predecessor and approached to C.D.G.K. For mutation of the same. The record reveals that mutation was also allowed on payment of requisite fee, where after petitioner approached the C.D.G.K. For lease of the plots, during pendency of this process the Ordinance III of 2001 was promulgated and the C.D.G.K. In exercise of the powers conferred under the said Ordinance required the petitioner to seek regularization of the plots in question by making further payment at the market value. The law requires that the regularization fee was to be determined by the committee and the committee after hearing had directed the petitioner to pay a sum of Rs,97,00,000 towards the regularization of both the plots. This payment of fee has been published in the newspapers.
3. Thereafter, when the petitioner approached to the concerned office of the C.D.G.K. They refused to take the regularization fee for extraneous consideration as a result of which the present petition was filed. The detailed counter-affidavit has been filed by the C.D.G.K. In which it has been conceded that the plots originally were allotted to the P. T. C. L. But subsequently somewhere on 11- 11-1979 the plots were cancelled and later on these plots were allotted in the year 1990 to Messrs Galleria Fibers B Limited vide allotment order dated 19-3-1990 and physical possession was handed over on 12-7-1990 by the KDA/ predecessor of the C.D.G.K. The counter-affidavit of C.D.G.K.
Further reveals that Messrs Galleria Fibers Limited, who are predecessors of the petitioner had sold the plots to the petitioner and in this respect the C.D.G.K. Had transferred the plots in the name of petitioner on 7-1-2000. The P.T.C.L. After the alleged cancellation had never approached either the KDA or any other forum impugning the order of cancellation. These plots which are subject-matter of these proceedings, according to the record and counter-affidavit were lawfully allotted to the predecessor of the petitioner after they were cancelled on 11-11-1979 and which order of cancellation has never been impugned. However, C.D.G.K. Claims that P.T.C.L. Has now approached them but the P.T.C.L. In spite of knowledge has not approached this Court.
4. In the counter-affidavit a strange plea has been taken by the C.D.G.K. Which is ex-facie tainted with malice. It has been stated that the C.D.G.K. Cannot understand as to why the plots allotted to P.T.C.L. Were cancelled on 11-11-1979 by the KDA. What is most interesting is that an attempt has been made to revive the allotment of the P.T.C.L. On the basis of procured letter from P.T.C.L. This all appears to have been done to frustrate the claim of the petitioner. Once the KDA now C.D.G.K. has allotted plots in 1990 and pocketed the allotment fee and other requisite fee which they kept on charging under the garb of different heads from the petitioner and his predecessor as the allottees, how come they now turn around and hold brief of P.T.C.L. In the given circumstances, we direct the petitioner to deposit the amount of Rs,97,77,776 which the committee has determined as regularization fee under the c Ordinance III of 2001 with the Nazir of this Court within four weeks from today. After promulgation of the Ordinance III of 2001 the C.D.G.K. Cannot cancel the plots of petitioner except that it can demand enhanced regularization fee. It is also strange that in the face of the allotment order issued by the K.D.A in the name of the predecessor after - cancelling the allotment of P.T.C.L., and subsequent mutation in the name of the petitioner, could not be over- looked by the C.D.G.K. To revive the allotment of the P.T.C.L. On some request without resorting to the requirement of the law.
5. We, therefore, allow this petition subject to deposit of the amount assessed by the committee under the Ordinance III of 2001 with the Nazir of this Court. On deposit of the amount, the plots which are subject-matter of these proceedings shall stand regularized. The C.D.G.K. Will be at liberty to withdraw the amount deposited by the petitioner from the Nazir after issuing confirmation letter of regularization of plots in favour of the petitioner. Before parting with the judgment we may observe that under the provisions of Ordinance III of 2001, plots are not cancelled but they are required to regularize and the C.D.G.K. Is suffering under the misconception of law and an attempt has been made to treat the subject plots of the petitioners as cancelled which approach is erroneous. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.