' Through the instant writ petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has made the following prayer:- ' In the circumstances, it is, therefore, very humbly and graciously prayed that the instant constitutional petition may kindly be accepted and the Respondents No. 1 & 2 may kindly be directed to issue Transfer/Allotment Letters of Plots No. 25, 26 & 37 Sherpao Colony Rawalpindi along with the approved Building Site plan of the same to the petitioner.
' It is further prayed that Respondent No. 3 may kindly be restrained for any interference including letting the said plots for holding Itwaar Bazar and respondent may also be directed to remove the garbage drums from the said plots and make sure that in future Respondent No. 3 will not interfere of any kind over the said plots of petitioner.
' It is further prayed that Respondent No. 4 may kindly be directed not to interfere in possession or ownership of petitioner regarding said plots and also that the Respondent No. 4 may restrain for giving any unlawful direction to the Respondents No. 1, 2 & 3 regarding issue of Allotment Letters or approval of Building Site Plan of the said plots to the petitioner.
' Any other relief which this Honourable Court may deem fit and proper may also be granted to the petitioner".
2. The facts as mentioned in the writ petition are that predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner namely Moulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada formed and established a Company namely M/s Accurate Builders and Constructors (Pvt.) Ltd for development and construction of residential and commercial houses and plazas. Respondents Nos. 1 & 2 published an advertisement in daily "Naw- e-Waqat" for auction of certain plots to be conducted on 02.04.1998. The former Chairman of Accurate Builders & Constructors (Pvt.) Ltd namely Moulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada participated in the said auction and was declared highest bidder for plots No. 25, 26 & 37 Sherpao Colony, Rawalpindi. Respondents No. 1 & 2 accepted the offer of said Chairman. It is claimed in the writ petition that the payments of the said plots were deposited in favour of Respondents No. 1 & 2. The petitioner's company also submitted a building plan of a Housing Plaza for approval, however, Respondents No. 1 & 2 with mala fide intention and ulterior motive delayed issuing of transfer letters of these plots and did not give any reply for the approval of building plan. In the year 2008, Respondent No. 4 initiated an inquiry against the petitioner company and also imposed caution on all the properties owned by the company namely Accurate Builders and Constructors (Pvt.) Ltd. Or late Maulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada including the above mentioned plots. The petitioner applied on many occasions for issuance of transfer letter of the said plots as well as for approval of the building plan but respondents did not pay any heed to the request of the petitioner. It is claimed by Respondents No. 1 & 2 that Respondent No. 4 has already imposed caution, therefore, transfer letter could not be issued nor any building plan can be approved. It is also claimed in the writ petition that Respondent No. 3/Tehsil Municipal Administration/TMA Rawalpindi is holding Sunday/Itwaar Bazar on the said plots without obtaining any permission from the petitioner which is also an illegal act. Hence the present writ petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is owner in possession of the said plots. Respondents No. 1 & 2 are not issuing allotment letters even after the receipt of full payment which is against the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as well as rules and regulations issued by the respondent authority. Submits that on receipt of the full payment from the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner the subject plots were no longer under ownership or possession of Respondents No. 1 & 2 and said respondents were duty bound to fulfill all the responsibility in this regard regarding transfer of said plots in favour of the petitioner which they did not fulfill. It is also claimed that NAB cannot stop Respondent No. 2 from issuing allotment letters or approval of building without obtaining order from the Accountability Court. No such order ever obtained by NAB.
4. During the pendency of the writ petition, the petitioner filed CM. No. 888/2012 whereby sought interim relief against the notice dated 14.06.2012 issued by Respondents No. 1 & 2 regarding payment of the balance interest amount of the said plots. In this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on receipt of total payment including interest, the respondents have no right to claim further interest as the same will amount to claiming of interest over interest which is not allowed under the law. In support of her contention, the learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon National Bank of Pakistan vs. Punjab Buildings Products Ltd. (PLD 1998 Karachi 302), Dawood Islamic Bank Limited vs. Ad more Gas (Pvt.) Limited and 6 others [(2012 CLD 263) (Sindh)] and Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan vs. Messrs Bandagi Agro Services (Pvt.) Limited and another [(2002 CLD 1686) (Lahore)]. Submits that the writ petition be accepted and a direction be issued to the respondents to issue transfer/allotment letter in respect of Plot Nos. 25, 26 & 37 Sherpao Colony, Rawalpindi and also approve the building plan in favour of petitioner.
5. On the other, hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Respondents No. 1 & 2 submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition as the plots were purchased in auction by one Maulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada and the petitioner without obtaining any decree from the competent Court approached this Court on the ground that he is the Chairman of the Company M/S Accurate _Builders & Constructors (Pvt.) Ltd. Submits that the plots were purchased by Maulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada in his personal capacity and the Company was not the purchaser of the plots, therefore, the present writ petition is not maintainable by Syed Muhammad Shamim Asghar son of Moulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada as Chairman of the company or even in his personal capacity without any declaration with regard to legal heirs of Moulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada. Further submits that an inquiry was pending against Moulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada as well as the Company M/S Accurate Builders & Constructors (Pvt.) Ltd. And during the pendency of the said inquiry a letter under Section 23 of the NAB Ordinance, 1999 was issued whereby the plots owned by Moulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada were put under caution. The said letters have never been challenged by Maulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada or the Company. Under the law said notice is binding upon Respondents Nos. 1 & 2. Further submits that an amount of Rs. 15,37,842/- is still outstanding on account of mark up, therefore, on this account also transfer letter cannot be issued to any person. Learned counsel further submits that the facts have not been properly stated before the Court, plots were auctioned in the year 1998 against total amount of Rs. 1,22,49,119/-, 20% down payment was made. However, the balance amount could not be paid, therefore, the plots were cancelled on 20.11.1998. A civil suit was filed and during the pendency of the said suit a letter dated 8.7.2005 was issued whereby it was offered that balance amount along with interest of 13.5% be paid within a period of one month and a condition was also imposed that litigation will have to be withdrawn. The petitioner availed the said offer, deposited an amount of Rs.95,00,000/- only but failed to pay the balance amount. Later on Respondents. No. 1 & 2 allowed balance payment in two installments at the rate of Rs.47,15,759/- per installment. The said two installments were paid in the year 2006. Later on a ban was imposed by the NAB authorities and during audit of the accounts of the respondents/ authority an objection was raised ' that interest amount of Rs. 15,34,882/- has not been recovered from the petitioner, therefore, notice dated 14.06.2012 was issued. The petitioner neither challenged the said notice nor paid any amount on account of interest, therefore, Respondents No. 1 & 2 cannot issue transfer letter in favour of any person including the petitioner.
Submits that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. The learned counsel for Respondents-No. 1 & 2 relied upon Manzoor Hussain vs. Karam Hussain and others (2006 SCMR 869) and Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Narendra Doshi (2004 PTD 2128) in support of his contention.
6. I have heard the arguments and perused the record.
7. Perusal of the record reveals that late father of the petitioner namely Moulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada participated in auction of the plots and was declared successful bidder of three plots No. 29, 26 & 37 Sherpao Colony, Rawalpindi. Certain disputes arisen between the father of petitioner and the respondent authorities due to which plots were cancelled. Later on any offer was made to the father of the petitioner for payment of balance outstanding amount along with interest who availed the same and made the payment. However, as per the claim of respondents/authority the amount of Rs. 15,34,882/-was still outstanding without making payment of such amount no transfer can be claimed.
8. Not a single document is placed on record which could show that the company namely M/s Accurate Builders and Contractors (Pvt.) Ltd., had, any nexus with the above said plots. All the letters issued by the respondents were in the name of late father of the petitioner, therefore, the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present writ petition in his personal capacity without obtaining decree from the Court of competent jurisdiction regarding legal heirs of the deceased father or in his capacity as the Chairman of the company M/s Accurate Builders and Contractors (Pvt.) Ltd., as the said Company has no nexus with the plots No. 29, 26 & 37 of Sherpao Colony, Rawalpindi.
9. Even other wise disputed facts are involved in the present writ petition which cannot be resolved through constitutional petition. It is also not ascertainable from the available record whether the petitioner is the only surviving legal heir of late Moulvi Ahmed Sagheer Shahzada, for this reason also the present writ petition is not maintainable.
10. In view of what has been discussed above, the instant writ petition being devoid of any force is hereby dismissed.