' ARSHAD NOOR KHAN, J.--- By this application the plaintiff has prayed for grant of injunction against the defendants to restrain them to resume the land involved in the present suit.
2. The facts leading to the present application, in brief, are that the plaintiff-company is incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 as a Private Limited Company having its registered office at 25/B, SB-6, Zaibunnisa Street, Saddar Karachi. It is further stated in the plaint that the plaintiff approached the defendant No,1 on 28-3-2006 for allotment of industrial land for, amongst others, setting up an industrial park with the view to establish an industry. The plaintiff's credentials and capability to set up an industry are well-established. Defendant No,1 on receiving the proposal indicated dated 28-3-2006 under the Rules of Business referred the matter to the Chief Minister at Karachi and put up summary to Chief Minister and Scrutiny Committee. The defendant No,2 issued statement of condition under the provision of subsection (2) of section 10 of Colonization ' of Government Lands Act, 1912, dated 25-2-2006, under which land was to be allotted by the defendant No,
1. On 4th May, 2006 and pursuant to Clause (b) and sub-clause (1) of Condition 8 of the same statement of condition, a Scrutiny Committee considered the proposal and allotted the same to the plaintiffs. It is further stated in the plaint that pursuant to the decision, taken by the Scrutiny Committee the Secretary to the Government of Sindh, Land Utilization Department on 21-6-2006 was pleased to allot the 80 acres of land in Survey No,89, Deh Khanto Karachi, National Highway in favour of the plaintiff. The plaintiff requested for slight amendment to be made to the letter of allotment, which was placed before the Scrutiny Committee and the meeting of Scrutiny Committee was held on 3-7-2006, who approved the amendment suggested by the plaintiff. On the basis of aforestated allotment, Challan No,1115 dated 13-7-2006 for the amount of Rs,179,937,500 was paid by the plaintiff on 11-8-2006 and vide separate challan dated 13-11-2007 for an amount of Rs,661,870 was also deposited' on 13-11-2007. Thereafter on 11-1-2007, the defendant No,4 after demarcation, a Layout/Utara/Surat-e-Hall, handed over subject property to the plaintiff. The plaintiff has since that date paid further sum of Rs,34,19,000 as capital value and a sum of Rs,661,870 in respect of ground rent and a further sum of Rs,10,000 on 13-7-2006. On 17-1- 2007, the plaintiff asked for grant of permission to construct a boundary wall on the subject property to prevent encroachers thereon. On 20-2-2007, the plaintiff informed the defendant No,1 that they were going to construct boundary wall on the said property thereafter the miseries of the plaintiff started. The plaintiff invested and committed to the project in earnest started developing the subject property and started moving applications before defendants Nos.2, 3 and 4. On 3-2- 2007, the defendant No,5 wrote a letter to the defendant No,1 enclosing a letter from the defendant No,3 informing to defendant No,4 that the plaintiff has moved a Layout Plan for sub-division for construction on the subject property. The defendant No,3 immediately on 6-2-2007 forwarded the same to the defendant No,1 for approval. The plaintiff again approached to the defendant No,1 through letter dated 17-2-2007 for approval of getting electricity connection from K.E.S.C. And Gas connection from Sui Southern Gas Company and water connection from K.W.&S.B. When the plaintiff started construction on the aforesaid property, some miscreants and land grabbers started creating problems for him. The plaintiff on 21-2-2007 wrote a letter to defendant No,1 seeking his assistance from him. The defendant No,1, therefore, provided security guards to protect such large portion of land, who continue to assist in the protection of the suit property along with private security of the plaintiff. The defendant No,2 had not completed approval of the town planning of the area which caused delay and in addition, the defendant No,1 was not issuing him a N.O.C. For getting connections for Electricity, Gas and Water connections. It is further stated in the plaint that in spite of zealous efforts of the plaintiff, the defendants are not approving the development plan submitted through defendant No,5 to defendant No,2. It is further stated in the plaint that despite the fact that 80 acres of land having been allotted to him only 68 acres and 5 Ghuntas of the land was physically available at the location. On 2-4-2007, the defendant No,1 issued notice dated 2-4-2007 directing the plaintiff to complete certain obligations with a period of one month failing which the property would be resumed. The plaintiff, therefore, vide his letter, dated 30-4-2007 clarified the position. The matter was taken up by the defendants on 30-5-2007 and was referred to Scrutiny Committee at their next meeting. The Scrutiny Committee considered the matter on 27-7-2007 and was directed to continue the project and plaintiff was allowed to continue the construction work on the aforesaid land. Thereafter Malir Development Authority issued a challan in the sum of Rs,75,000 for approval of the plan of the plaintiff, which was duly paid. The Malir Development Authority has since approved the Layout Plan for the area and has published a notice in the daily "JANG" dated 28-3-2007 and has since then they refused to further process the matter, therefore, the plaintiff could not undertake further development work. On 20-11- 2007, a lease has been executed by the defendant No,1 in favour of plaintiff for 69.15 acres of land in Deh Kanto Bin Qasim Town, Karachi. The plaintiff has also been issued a Form No,2 to certify the defendant No,3 confirming the title of the plaintiff thereon. The plaintiff has, therefore, invested huge amount on the construction of project and are receiving threats on the daily basis by the defendant No,1 that the property will be resumed by him and the money invested by the plaintiff will stand forfeited though the plaintiff have never violated the terms and conditions of the allotment. It is further stated in the plaint that on last night the plaintiff's private security guards were attacked by the land grabbers who broke down the wall of the subject suit property and the said action seems to have been sponsored by the defendant. The cause of action has, therefore, been, accrued to the plaintiff on last night viz. (13-6-2006 when the suit was filed), when the boundary wall as demolished by the said miscreants. The plaintiff has, therefore, by the present suit seeks therein declaration and injunction as follows:---
(A) Declare
(i) That the plaintiff is the sole and absolute owner of 80 acres of land Deh Kanto Malir, Karachi.
(ii) That the plaintiff is legally in possession of land of 68 acres and 15 Ghuntas of land situated in C.No,89 Deh Kanto Malir, Karachi as identified in the plan dated 11 January, 2007.
(iii) That the defendants have no right to dispossess the plaintiff from or resume 68 Acres and 15 Ghuntas of land situated in NC No,89, Deh Kanto Malir, Karachi as identified in the plan dated 11 January, 2007.
(iv) That the defendants are stopped from dispossessing the plaintiff from or resume 68 Acres and 15 Ghuntas of land situated in NC No,89 Deh Kanto Malir, Karachi as identified in the plan dated 11 January, 2007.
(B) Restrain
(i) The defendants from cancelling the allotment dated 21 June, 2006 in favour of the plaintiff.
(ii) The defendants from forcefully resuming possession of land of 68 Acres and 15 Ghuntas of land situated in NC No,89 Deh Kanto, Malir Karachi as identified in the plan dated 11 January, 2007.
(iii) The defendants not to dispossess the plaintiff until they have completed all procedure in respect of the development of land as required in conformity with the law. ;) Direct ) The defendants to complete all procedure in respect of the development of land as required in conformity with law.
(ii) The defendants to provide the plaintiff with the balance 18-23 Acres of land.
(D) Grant
(i) Cost.
(ii) Any other relief that this Honourable Court may in the interest of justice deem fit.
3. Injunction application has also been filed along with the suit.The notices of the suit as well as injunction application have been served on the defendants which have been served but no one amongst them, except defendant No,2, have appeared. The defendant No,2 has filed counter- affidavit to the injunction application, inter alia, denied the claim of the plaintiff, according to him, the land in question has been shown to be in possession of Archeology Department, Government of Sindh and the historical graveyard in the name of "Chokhandi" is also existing on the said land and Archeology Department has not been impleaded as a party in the present suit. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the land has been allotted fraudulently to the plaintiff and the same is being under the scrutiny of NAB Authority. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the plaintiff neither has good prima facie case nor balance of convenience lies in his favour nor he would suffer an irreparable loss in case if the injunction is refused as it is settled principle of law that the loss, if any, which could be measured in terms of money, the settled rule is that the injunction could not be granted.
4. I, therefore, heard Mr. Naim-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the plaintiff and Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman, Advocate for the defendant No,2.
5. The learned counsel for the plaintiff vehemently contended that the land in question has been lawfully allotted to the plaintiff by the government in transparent manner and the defendants cannot resume the said land which has been transferred to the plaintiff. He further contended that the matter of transfer of land has been scrutinized by the Scrutiny Committee and the Scrutiny Committee twice have decided the matter in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the agreement of lease was executed by the defendant No,1 in favour of the plaintiff. It is further argued by him that after transfer of the land in question in favour of the plaintiff, all rights, titles, interests devolved in the name of the plaintiff, which cannot be resumed or rescinded by the defendants on any ground.
According to him, the plaintiff possess good prima facie case and balance of inconvenience also lie in his favour and, in case, if the injunction is refused, the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss and injury.
' In support of his contention he has relied upon the cases reported in 1999 CLC 1173, 1976 SCM R 393 and 1990 MLD 2230.
6. Mr. Munir-ur-Rehman, learned counsel for the defendant No,2, vehemently refuted the arguments advanced on behalf of the plaintiff and has contended that the land in question has been obtained in fraudulent manner much against the market value prevailing there and the matter is under investigation by the NAB Authorities. He further contended that the historical graveyard of "Chokhandi" is being grabbed by the plaintiff and the defendant No,3 has reserved the said plots for amenity purposes as such in view of section 6(2) of Sindh Disposal of Urban Land Ordinance, 1999, the land in question could not be used or allotted for any other purpose. He also argued that the land in question was not allotted to the plaintiff in the meeting of Scrutiny Committee and the sale-deed has been got registered in very pregnant manner, as the Finance Adviser, who attended the meeting of the Scrutiny Committee, recorded his adverse note in his handwriting at the bottom of the minutes of that meeting, which is of much significance and that land in question was not allotted to the plaintiff unanimously by the defendants. According to him, neither the plaintiff has good prima facie case nor balance of inconvenience lies in his favour nor he will suffer irreparable loss or injury if, the injunction is refused.
7. I have considered the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties and have gone through the entire material available on record.
8. The claim of the plaintiff is that the land in question has been allotted to them legally and in transparent manner and all the legal and codal formalities were completed prior to registration of the sale-deed. For the purpose of transparent allotment of the land, the plaintiff has vehemently relied upon the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee held on 4-5-2006 and in pursuance of the said minutes an other meeting of the Scrutiny Committee held on 3-7-2006 vide Annexure "D-2" and in that meeting of the Scrutiny Committee at Serial No,5, the land in question was recommended for allotment to the plaintiff. The recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee shows that the Committee decided to take further necessary action in the matter towards the allotment. The plaintiff made correspondence with the defendants regarding raising of the boundary wall of the property in question but meanwhile a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Land Act, 1912 was issued on 2-4-2007, whereby the plaintiff was required to rectify the objection which also followed the letter of the defendant No,1, dated 27-9-2007. The plaintiff, therefore, filed application on 20-5-2007 making therein certain suggestions, whereon, the Chief Minister ordered to send the matter to Scrutiny Committee for rectification and for final disposal and justice vide his order, dated 30-5-2007. After the orders of the Chief Minister dated 30-5-2007 the matter of the Scrutiny Committee was held on 27-7-2007, wherein, as per claim of the plaintiff the land was finally allotted to him which has been refuted by the learned counsel for the defendant No,2 in view of dissenting note made in the handwriting by the Additional Secretary of Finance Department. The record shows that after the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee dated 27-7-2007, the land in question was leased out vide registered lease deed, dated 20-11-2007, Annexure "L/1" to the plaintiff.
A perusal of the contents of minutes of meeting dated 27-7-2007, Annexure "J/2", shows that the meeting was held consisting of 14 members, who decided so many other matters but the Finance Department showed their reservation on the allotment of the land to the plaintiff. A perusal of the minutes of the Scrutiny Committee, dated 27-7-2007, Annexure "J/2" to the plaint, further shows that all the 14 members of the said Committee have not signed the minutes dated 27-7-2007. The said minutes are required to be signed by all the members who attended the said meeting but the said minutes shows that only four members signed it, whereas, 5th member (Finance Department) showed their reservation and the Chairman of the Scrutiny Committee (Senior Member, Board of Revenue) also did not sign the said minutes, Annexure "J/2". Non-signature of all the members of the meeting renders the whole decision made therein as invalid and no action is called for pursuant to the said minutes, dated 27-7-2007 being either incomplete or legitimate presumption that the decisions made therein were not unanimous, therefore, no subsequent action could be taken by the defendant No, 1 . On query of the Court, that which is the impugned order, which caused injury to the plaintiff to file the present suit, was issued by the defendants and challenged in the present suit, to which learned counsel for the plaintiff candidly states that no such notice for cancellation or resumption of the land in question under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 has been issued by the defendants but the plaintiff apprehends that the defendants will resume the said land, therefore, he has filed the present suit. It is, therefore, evident that the suit has been filed by the plaintiff merely on the basis of surmises and conjecture and so far no action has been initiated by the defendant No,1 to resume the said land, as such, the suit seems to have been based on assumption, presumption and apprehension, and assumption or presumption how so strong it, could not be the base for filing the suit before the Court, nor the Court can entertain such suit which is purely based on surmises and conjuncture. From the A documentary evidence, as discussed above, it transpires that the minutes of meeting of Scrutiny Committee dated 27-7-2007, Annexure "J/2" to the plaint, were wholly incomplete, therefore, it could not be said that subsequent act based on these minutes binds the defendants not to take any action against the plaintiff. Even otherwise no restriction or clog could be put on the powers of the Government, not to take lawful action on the allotment of land, if grave illegalities are apparent in the process of allotment of Government land in view of section 24 or other provisions of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912. All these circumstances, therefore, do not constitute a very good prima facie case in favour of the plaintiff, therefore, the question of balance of inconvenience in favour of plaintiff does not arise nor the plaintiff will suffer irreparable loss, in case, the injunction is refused. The case-law relied upon by the learned counsel for the plaintiff, in my humble opinion, are entirely distinguishable from the circumstances of the present case and are inapplicable. The injunction application has, therefore, no merit and same is hereby dismissed.
9. The admission of the learned counsel for the plaintiff that the defendants have not issued any notice for cancellation of the land and the plaintiff apprehends that the defendants will resume the land, clearly shows that the plaintiff has filed his suit on the basis of assumption, apprehension, presumption, surmises and conjecture and assumption, apprehension and presumption, how so strong, it may be, the Court cannot accept it to maintain the suit. The suit filed by the plaintiff is, therefore, not maintainable on this score and is also premature, as such the plaint is also hereby rejected under Order VII, rule 11, C.P.C. With no order as to costs.
Plaint rejected.