1. ' SYED PIR ALI SHAH, J.---In this petition, filed under Article 199 of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has stated that he was granted 4-0 acres of land out of A Naclass No,82 Deh Phiahi District, East, Karachi on 99 years' lease at the rate of Rs,100 per square yard for residential/ commercial purpose by the respondent No,1 vide allotment Order No, PS/MBR/ (LU)/1806/95 dated 1-10-1995. His case is that on 12-10-1995, he made an application to the Deputy Commissioner, East, Karachi now D.O. (Revenue), the respondent No,3, for issuance of challan for payment of 25% lease money and art amount of Rs,4,84,000 was worked out at the rate Rs,100 per square yard which could not be materialized due to change of Government. The contention of the petitioner is that he repeatedly made applications, dated 11-1-1996 and 8-3-1997 but with no result.
2. ' It is stated that the government appointed a commission of enquiry during the month of April, 1997 to probe into the allotments, grants and leases of State land for the period i.e, from October, 1993 to November, 1996 and such, notification No,S. Legis: 17(18)/97/2140, dated 13-9-1997 to this effect was issued. The petitioner was amongst 424 allottees whose cases were referred for consideration by the above said Commission. Allegedly, in this connection, matter was published in Daily Dawn, dated 21-10-1997 for hearing of the cases on 17-11-1997. It is mentioned that the said Committee examined the cases and arrived at conclusion in respect of petitioner's case that the same was without consultation of the Finance Department at a low price.
3. ' The petitioner has inter alia contended that he was expecting challan to be issued by the respondents and he made written requests on 10-5-1999, 16-8-2000 and 10-4-2002. It is further contended that in January, 2001, respondent No,1 had promulgated Sindh Government Land (Cancellation of Allotment,- Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance (hereinafter referred to as the "Ordinance of 2001") and a Commission of Enquiry was constituted under section 4 thereof under the chairmanship of a retired Judge of this Court in order to scrutinize various allotments and leases with a view to determine occuparcy price of lands on the basis of their market value. It is mentioned that the commission of enquiry 'after thorough examination of all the cases fallen within the ambit of Ordinance, 2001 including subject land, prepared a consolidated report and determined the differential Malkano (lease money). The commission made specific recommendations that allottees be required to deposit the differential occupancy value determined by the Commission and after its payment the land in question was to be regularized.
4. The Commission had also recommended issuance of challan for the entire occupancy value and regularization of allotment upon deposit thereof.
5. ' The case of the petitioner is that he had approached respondent No,2 for issuance of challan vide applications, dated 6-5-2003 and 19-8-2003 respectively but he was not issued challan to enable him to make the requisite payment of differential lease money. It is stated that above said enquiry commission got the notice published in Daily "Dawn" and Daily "fang", dated 3-11-2003. Accordingly, the petitioner through his application, dated 6-11-2003 specifically requested the respondent No,1 to issue offer letter and challan of market price but he has been deprived from the use and enjoyment of subject land allotted to him more than a decade ago. The petitioner has further stated that he had also approached the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, Sindh, and finally to the Chief Executive of Sindh through representations, dated 22-11-2005 and 20-12-2005, seeking effective directions to the respondents to issue challan of lease money for Rs,37,75,200 at the rate of Rs,9,53,800 per acre. According to the petitioner, finding no other adequate and efficacious remedy, he had no other alternate but to seek remedy by way of filing this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.
6. ' This petition has mainly been agitated on the ground that the impugned action of the respondent by not issuing challan of lease money at the price determined by the Commission/Committee settled under the provisions of Ordinance, 2001 in respect of subject land to the petitioner, is mala fide, unlawful and unjustified and as such, constitutional jurisdiction of this Court has been invoked.
7. His next submission is that the allotment of subject land was made in favour of petitioner on 1-10- 1995 by way of competent authority which cannot be cancelled or retracted except in accordance with law. It has been argued that the non issuance of challan and delivery of physical possession to the petitioner amounts to failure on the part of the respondents to perform their legal obligations.
8. His contention is that the allotment order, dated 1-10-1995 was a bilateral contract which cannot be unilaterally ignored or cancelled. In this petition, petitioner has alleged that his right on the subject land is protected under Articles 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Pakistan which cannot be taken away except in accordance with law.
9. ' Following prayers are made by the petitioner in this petition:--
(a) To declare that the petitioner is entitled to grant of lease of 4-0 acre land out of Naclass No,82.
10. Deh Phiahi District, East, Karachi, pursuant to Allotment order, dated 1-10-1995 issued by the respondent No,1 and to develop, use and enjoy the same.
(b) To issue direction to the respondents and/or any one claiming or acting through or under them to issue challan of occupancy charges/lease money of the subject land to the petitioner for payment in accordance with the price determined and approved by the Commission and after its payment, regularize the subject land and issue necessary NOC in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of 2001-Ordinance.
(c) To restrain the respondents from alienating, interfering, transferring and or leasing out the subject land to any one else in any manner and to further direct the respondents to act in accordance with law.
11. ' Upon notice of this petition, respondent No,1 filed comments. Almost, all the contents of the petition have been admitted. They have not denied about grant of subject land at the rate of Rs,100 per square yard on 99 years' lease. Their contention is that the petitioner has failed to deposit the Malkano. It has been admitted that the Sindh Government Lands Committee determined the differential Malkano of land in a routine manner in all the cases of allotments and that it does not mean that the non-existence grant could be re-activated. Their next objection is that the differential amount assessed by the Enquiry Commission formed under Sindh Government Lands Ordinance, 2001 has not been paid by the petitioner. In para. 10, it has been stated that a summary, dated 21-6-2006 was floated to the Chief Minister, Sindh.
12. ' We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at great length so also learned A.A.-G representing the respondents. We have also minutely gone through the relevant case papers.
13. ' Undisputedly, the petitioner was granted subject land on 99 years' lease at the rate of Rs,100 per square yard vide allotment order No, PS/MBR/(LU)/ 1806/95, dated 1-10-1995. As mentioned above, the petitioner has specifically stated that he had approached the respondents time and again for issuance of challan prior to the Ordinance of 2001 in the month of January, 2001 so also thereafter.
14. Even, he had approached the Senior Member, Board of Revenue, so also Chief Minister who is Chief Executive of the Province as well. In their comments, respondents have simply denied that the letters, dated 10-5-1999, 16-8-2000 and 10-4-2002 were not received by them. However they have not disputed regarding subsequent letters, dated 6-5-2003 and 19-8-2003 issued by the petitioner requesting them to issue the challan to enable him to pay differential amount worked out by the Enquiry Commission formed after promulgation of the Ordinance, 2001. In the instant petition, the petitioner, has throughout reiterated that the challan was not issued by the respondents to him.
15. Admittedly ,said challan was not issued by the respondents of no fault on the part of the petitioner.
16. Had it been so, that the petitioner slept over his right and that he was not vigilant then responsibility could have been fixed upon him. But documents and material available on record are the concrete proof that he was vigorously pursuing his matter constantly. In any case, he cannot be termed as negligent, irresponsible or defaulter while performing his legal obligations. On the contrary respondents seem to have ignored and neglected while issuing challan to the petitioner to enable him to make payment of the differential amount duly assessed and fixed by the Enquiry Commission headed by a retired Judge of this Court. It is not a case that the differential amount assessed and fixed by the Enquiry Commission formed under the Ordinance of 2001 was challenged by the respondents before any forum. All the same, it is concluded that the respondents acted discriminatory by not issuing requisite challan. It, therefore, follows that the respondents did not apply the rule of consistency and acted otherwise resulting that the legal and valid rights of the petitioner vested under the Constitution B were infringed which compelled him to file this constitutional petition which is accordingly allowed. The respondents are required to issue challan of occupancy charges/lease money of the subject land to the petitioner for payment in accordance with the price determined and approved by the Commission and after its payment, regularize the subject land and issue necessary NOC in favour of the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of 2001-Ordinance. The respondents are restrained from alienating, interfering, transferring and/or leasing out the subject land to any one else in any manner with further directions to act in accordance with law. With these reasonings, this constitutional petition stands disposed of.
17. ' These are the reasons for allowing this petition on 18-1-2008 by way of short order.