IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, J. Through this petition under Section 11 of the Punjab Undesirable Cooperative Societies (Dissolution)Act, 1993, the petitioner to return the amount of Rs. 61,00,000/- alongwith 2% liquidated charges by declaring the same as unlawful against facts and without basis and the land in question of the petitioner be declared as without any encumbrance or charges.
3. Briefly the facts are that the petitioner was owner of land 'measuring 213 kanals situated in Chak No. 43-Shumali Tehsil and District Sargodha. The petitioner made an agreement to sell on 28.2.1989 with Commercial Cooperative Development Corporation Limited, Sargodha through Muhammad Ashraf Khan for a consideration of Rs. 1,44,81,250/-. Commercial Cooperative Development Corporation Limited paid Rs. 50,000,000/- as earnest money to the petitioner and as per conditions of the agreement to sell the date for completion of the agreement was fixed as 1.9.1991. Commercial Cooperative Development Corporation Ltd., Sargodha did not perform its part of the contract nor pay the balance amount. On 2.7.1991 the date for execution of agreement to sell was extended. The Commercial Cooperative Development Corporation Ltd., Sargodha got registered sale-deed of land measuring 44 kanals in its favour and Mutation No. 6018, dated 30.12.1991 was also sanctioned. However, the said defunct Corporation never approached the petitioner for transfer of remaining land nor paid balance amount from the date 29.2.1992 which was fixed for completion of the agreement to sell and the same expired. According to the petitioner, he tried his level best for completion of agreement to sell but all in vain. The Deputy Registrar Cooperative Societies, Sargodha Division respondent No. 2 wrote letter No. 2887 to the then Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha in August, 1994 to the effect that the petitioner was bent upon in disposing of the land, in consequence whereof the Dis.Trict Collector, Sargodha informed the lower revenue staff, whereupon vide roznamcha waqiati No. 1031, dated 30.8.1994 an encumbrance was created upon the land of the petitioner and entry to that effect. Was also made in the Jamabandi pertaining to the year 1990-91, which is illegal and unlawful. The petitioner was also harassed and the case of the petitioner was also at one stage sent to the N.A.B. Although neither the petitioner had procured any loan nor did' he indulge in any corruption and the N.A.B.
Had to authority to take cognizance of the case of the petitioner, however, the proceedings before N.A.B. Were dropped thereof. The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration which was decreed by the learned Civil Judge, Sargodha vide order dated 8.5.1995, but on an appeal filed by the P.C.B.L.
The learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 4.11.1997 remanded the case to the Trial Court which was later on withdrawn .By the petitioner and filed this instant petition against respondents Nos. 3 to 5. The P.C.B.L. Took a stand that the remaining and of the petitioner was mortgaged for Rs. 60 plus 2% liquidation charges vide order dated 9.2.2005. The petitioner who had earlier undergone the agony of investigation by F.I.A. And by referring his case to the N.A.B. Was further forced to pay Rs. 61 lac to the respondent No. 1 after forcible receipt, of Rs. 61 lac from the petitioner issued N.O.C. No. 1706, dated 9.2.2005 showing the land redeemed to the petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner entered into an agreement to sell for 213 kanals land on 28.2.1989 with Commercial Cooperative Development Ltd., Sargodha through one Muhammad Ashraf for total consideration of Rs.
1,44,81,250/- out of which amount of Rs. 76 lac was paid as earnest money and date for completion of agreement was fixed on 1.9.1991; that the defunct Corporation could not perform its part of contract and on 2.7.1991 made request to extend the date of execution of sale-deed till 29.7.1991; that in the meanwhile said defunct Corporation could be able to get executed sale-deed only for land measuring 44 kanals; that thereafter the land of the petitioner was occupied by the Corporation and has cultivated the same for a period of 10 years and sale-deed was nor executed but when the petitioner moved application for release of his land they forced the petitioner to pay an amount of Rs. 60 lac with 2% liquidation charges and petitioner has paid the said amount. The petitioner received Rs. 76 lac and land measuring 44-kanals was transferred in the name of defunct Corporation on 13.5.1999 as the petitioner had received the earnest money. However, the land of petitioner was returned and amount of Rs. 36 lac should be paid by the petitioner which was excess amount which was not liquidation charges as the petitioner was never creditor of defunct Corporation and order of respondent make be set aside and they may be directed to may payment to the petitioner after deducting Rs. 36 lac out of Rs. 61 lac and they may also be directed to return the liquidation charges as they had already received the same.
5. On the other hand learned counsel for respondents opposes the petition on the ground that the petitioner has sold the land and possession was not delivered by him; that the petitioner had also committed fraud, who not execute the sale-deed and that the petitioner has to comply with the order of P.C.B.L. Which is justified.
5. I have heard the learned counsel for the respondent and perused the documents attached with this petition .
6. It is admitted fact that land measuring 213 kanals was agreed to be sold to Commercial Cooperative Development Corporation Ltd. By the petitioner for a total consideration of Rs. 1,41,81,250/- vide agreement to sell dated 28.2.1989 and the petitioner received earnest money amounting to Rs. 76 lac. It is also admitted that the date for completion of sale-dQed was fixed till 2.7.1991 which was subsequently extended to 29.7.1991 and no body approached to the petitioner for completion of the sale-deed. The possession was never delivered by the petitioner as the remaining amount was to be paid to the petitioner and the agreement to sell could not be completed as the sale and purchase of the defunct Corporations was banned. So petitioner was not defrauded in such circumstances. Admittedly the sale-deed was executed before the dissolution of Finance Corporation for land measuring 44 Kanals on 13.5.1989 for a total consideration of Rs. 40 lac. Rupees forty lac was adjusted from the earnest money which was received by the petitioner. In such circumstances the petitioner had remained in possession of Rs.
36 lac out of the earnest money and the deal could not struck as the Society was declared defunct.
As such it cannot be said that the said defunct Society was of fault in not completing the sale- deed or payment of the remaining amount to the petitioner. As such the petitioner was liable to return the excess amount, which was received by him as earnest money. The claim of the petitioner is that after deducting the amount to land which was sold to the defunct Corporation the outstanding amount against the petitioner was Rs. 36 lac while the petitioner has paid Rs. 61 lac for the release of his land alongwith 2% liquidation charges, which he is entitled to receive back the amount from the P.C.B.L. After deduction of amount of Rs. 36 lac which was balance with the petitioner out of the earnest money and petitioner cannot be imposed liquidation charges as the petitioner was not at fault in the completion of the deal and he was also not creditor. The respondents are directed to return the amount of Rs. 25 lac out of Rs. 61 lac after deducting Rs. 36 lac to the petitioner within one month from the receipt of this order. This petition stands disposed of accordingl.