' MUSHIR ALAM, J.---Petitioners have challenged inaction on the part of the respondent for not issuing challan in terms of Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000 as provided for under section 4(2) of the Ordinance.
2. In nutshell the case of the petitioner appears to be that the petitioner is a public limited company engaged in power generation, was allotted 50 acres of land from Nacalss 255, Deh Lal Bhakhar, Karachi on 99 years lease at Hawksbay at the rate of Rs,200,000 per acre. Petitioner was handed over possession of the land and the petitioner commenced its construction and development activity.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter of allotment was investigated, committee was constituted, which carried out detail probe into the matter of "illegal allotment/grant/transfer of State land during the period from October, 1993 to November, 1996 through a detail report dated 12-3-1998, opined that the subject land was allotted after complying all the codal formalities (page 35). It, however, appears that on 3-1-2001 pursuant to Sindh Urban State Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000.
4. Subject land was again sought to be cancelled; through a public notice all the allottees, who had been allotted land, were once again required to approach Committee constituted under the Ordinance III of 2001 for payment of the differential amount for regularization upto 31-7-2003. It is the case of the petitioner that petitioner is not covered under the Ordinance III of 2001, Mr. Zuberi contends that land was allotted in accordance with law and no illegality was committed despite such fact they have approached the authority concerned and applied for regularization of the subject land. According to the learned counsel revised rate at time of allotment in the year, 1995 was determined by the committee constituted under Ordinance III of 2001 as per tabulated statement provided to the petitioner. Name of the petitioner appears at Sr.No,3 issued by the Secretary Government of Sindh dated 30-7-2003 showing market value at time of allotment, which was worked out to be Rs,300,000 per acre. According to the learned counsel, the petitioner has been approaching authority concerned for issuance of the challan but to no avail. However, the petitioner was once again called upon to appear before the Committee through notice dated 26- 11-2005 and 5-12-2005 (Pages 51 and 53) to appear in meeting for revision of the rate for regularization of the subject land. It is stated that petitioner responded to such notice and challenged the impugned revision exercise proposed to be carried out and on failure to receive any response instant petition was filed.
5. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, once rates were fixed and determined under the Ordinance III of 2001 communicated to the petitioner and despite all reservation accepted, the respondents were left with no authority and or jurisdiction to revisit such determination under the Ordinance III of 2001. When learned counsel was confronted that authority passing any order has authority to revise and recall it, it was contended that the powers to revise any decision indeed vest in the authority under section 21 of the General Clauses Act. However, once such powers were exercised and rates communicated to the petitioner were accepted vested right is created in favour of the petitioner. In support of his contention he has placed reliance on the case of Ghulam Abid Khan v. Government of Pakistan 2000 CLC 443 and Abdul Haq v. Government of Sindh 2000 SCM R 907.
6. Mr. Shafi M. Memon learned A.A.-G. Contended that the rates fixed by the Committee were not in accordance with the market value. According to learned A.A.-G. Since challan has not been paid, therefore, no rights have been created or vested in the petition. It was further urged that the petitioner was repeatedly called upon to attend the meeting but he did not appear and the Committee in its meeting on 4-1-2006 decided to revise rate at Rs,9,60,000 per acre which revision of the rate is not acceded by the petitioner. It was further urged that the rate of Rs,300,000 initially fixed was considered by the Secretary Land Utilization to be far below the prevailing market rate at the relevant time, therefore, the revision was sought and it was accordingly revised. It was urged that the lease of the petitioner stand cancelled pursuant to the Ordinance III of 2001 and the property vested in the Government.
7. In rebuttal Mr. Zuberi learned counsel for the petitioner, contended that the Secretary, Land Utilization, does not figure out in the Ordinance III of 2001, the Secretary (LU) has no say in the matter. The decision as to determination of differential amount rests with the Committee constituted under the Ordinance III of 2001 above. Even in the case of Appeals (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Member
(LU) and others 2005 YLR 1921, it was held that Chief Minister has no say in the matter.
' We have heard the arguments and perused the record.
8. As recorded above petitioner was allotted land on 8-10-1995 at the rate of Rs,200,000 per acre. It is also not disputed that the Committee earlier constituted in 1998 found that the allotment in favour of the petitioner is after fulfilling all the codal formalities. The report of the Committee is available at page 35 of the file. Contention of Mr. Zuberi that once in duly constituted enquiry, it is established that land was allotted after fulfiling all codal formalities therefore, Ordinance III of 2001 is not attracted. It may be noted that subject land was allotted in relaxation of ban. It may be observed that ban is only lifted on political or extraneous consideration and not otherwise. It is admitted in para 4 of the petition that subject property was leased out on 8-10-1995 in "relaxation of ban". Therefore, contention cannot be sustained. The intent of the Ordinance III of 2001, was to provide opportunity to all grantees/lessees of Government land in violation of law and ban from 1- 1-1985, petitioner's grant was during the period of ban, therefore, Ordinance III of 2001 was rightly applied in the case of the petitioner. The purpose of the Ordinance from the preamble appears to be; to check any allotment conversion, or exchange of Government land to their favourites on political or extraneous consideration. Through Ordinance III of 2001, it was provided that all such Government land obtained or granted for residential, commercial or industrial purpose at the rates lower than the market value and or in violation of law or ban from 1-1-1985, including the subsequent transaction in respect thereof stand cancelled. However, such cancellation would stand regularized provided the differential of market value as determined under section 4(2) has been paid. It may be noted that in the instant case also public notice was issued para 2 thereof reads as follows:-- "Notice is hereby published for general information of all exgrantees/ex-lessees and subsequent purchasers to submit applications for payment of differential amount for regularization of cancelled land upto 31 July, 2003 with their present address and copy of NIC."
9. From the above, it appears the Committee required to be constituted under section 4 of the Ordinance, 2000 had already determined the rate prevailing at the time of allotment as provided under Ordinance III of 2001, called upon all the Grantees and Lessees and subsequent purchasers of State land for payment of differential amount to earn regularization upto 31-1-2003. From the record, it appears that the petitioners had applied for the same on 31-7-2001 as per the seal affixed on the letter placed at page 45 of the file, which letter has not been denied in its comments filed by the respondent No,1, it is only stated, it was addressed to the Chairman of the Committee constituted under Ordinance III of 2001 and not to the Secretary (LU) the respondent No,
1. Learned counsel for the petitioner is right to contend that once an offer is made and accepted vested right is created in the petitioner for regularization under the Ordinance III of 2001 and it was obligatory on the part of the respondents to issue challan for payment thereof, [see appeals (Pvt.) Ltd., v. Member
(LU) and others 2005 YLR 1921. It is not the case of the respondent that the challan was issued and the petitioner failed to make the payment.
' In view of the foregoing the petition is allowed, let challan be issued for the differential amount as determined per annexure P/9 (i,e, at the rate of Rs,3,00,000 per acre). However, the petitioner would be liable to pay interest on entire amount at the prevailing Bank rate of AAA rates bank, whichever is higher from the date of acceptance by the petitioner dated 30-7-2003 and subject to payment of prevalent upto date Malkano and occupancy value. Challan be issued within 30 days and payment along with interest upto date of payment be made within 15 days thereof.
' Petition stand disposed of in terms above.