1. Granted, subject to all just exceptions.
2. C.D.G.K. Has impugned the order dated 8-10-2009 whereby the learned Judge in Chamber on Execution Application No,53 of 2004 directed that alternate land shall be provided to the decree- holder (respondent No, 1) and in case it is not allotted within the stipulated time the decree-holder (respondent No, 1) should be allowed to raise construction on the plot according to approved plan as per building bye-laws and Judgment-debtor will not create any hindrances to the proposed construction without due process of law.
' Today the matter came up for the consideration, execution proceedings have already been initiated and value of and was tentatively assessed in terms of section 23 of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. It has also come on record that the value of the subject property is in-between Rs,200,000/Rs,300,000 per square yard. The D.D.O. Revenue has taken lower side of the value, assessed approximately close to Rs,810,40,000 (Rupees Eighty Millions Ten Lacs and Forty Thousand only) and it was for the C.D.G.K. To request British Council to deposit the amount towards compensation for further proceedings. Tentative assessment was made on 12-6-2009 with direction that amount may be varied at the time of final award.
' Mr. Manzoor, counsel for C.D.G.K. States that it is not disputed that respondent No, 1 is the owner of the subject property and he is alternatively entitled to raise construction. In case of acquisition, fair compensation as per market value is to be paid to the Decree-Holder (respondent No, 1). Mr. Manzoor, C.D.G.K. Requests three months' time for completion of entire exercise leading to making of final award and payment of compensation to the decree-holder (Respondent No, 1 herein).
' It may be observed from the record and the statement filed by learned counsel for appellant that suit filed in 1999 was decreed on 5-5-2003. Now an execution is also pending since 2004 and despite various Orders directing the C.D.G.K. Either to acquire property or pay compensation, same have not been complied with. Mr. Manzoor states that as a last opportunity three months may be allowed to complete the exercise. Mr. Shams is justified in objecting the request for further time at this stage. According to him tentative valuation has been determined, entire award has been made and only deposit of the amount as directed by the D.D.O. Revenue towards final award is to be made. According to him he has not objected to the value assessed on the lower side though he was entitled to question it but in order to resolve the controversy respondent No, 1 concede such valuation. After hearing the parties and examining the record and documents filed along with statement today in Court, we are of the view that no exception to the order dated 8-10-2009, impugned herein, could be taken. Further looking to the facts and circumstances of the case that foreign government interest is involved we would allow two months time to complete the entire exercise of land acquisition. Apparently there is no contest by the decree-holder (respondent No, 1) on the basis of valuation tentatively determined by the D.D.O. Revenue on 12-6-2009.
' In case entire exercise is not concluded and the amount is not deposited or paid to the decree- holder (Respondent No, 1 herein) within two months from today, the respondent No, 1 will be entitled to resume construction on the plot. It is also made clear to the appellant that all assistance be provided to the respondent No, 1 to raise such construction and the learned Executing Court can issue appropriate direction to the Regulatory Authority and Law Enforcing Agencies for implementation of the order passed by Executing Court. The H.C.A. Is disposed of in terms recorded above.