IJAZ UL AHSAN, J.---The brief facts giving rise to this lis are that the Pakistan Railways filed a suit on 23-10-2020 in respect of Survey Nos. 188, 189, and 190 (hereinafter referred to as "Surveys "). Pakistan Railways claimed ownership of land measuring 370 acres and 15 ghuntas falling within the Surveys, which was acquired for the Karachi Circular Railways as per the Collector , Karachi's letter dated 18-11-1959. The land in, question was notified for acquisition by the Administrator , Karachi, vide Notification dated 17-1 1-1960.
2. The dispute arose when Anwar Shah, the husband of Mrs. Yasmeen Shah (the predecessor in interest of the Applicant-Intervener) claimed ownership of some of the portions of the Surveys. Yasmeen Shah claimed ownership of the said portion based on the letter dated 17-09-1991. The rest of the land was occupied by other builders who had constructed buildings, namely , Lakhani Prides and Civic View, thereupon. Subsequently , allotment of the land was cancelled under section 3 of the Sindh Government Lands (Cancellation of Allotment, Conversions, and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000. Subsequently , under Section 4 of the ibid Ordinance, a Land Committee was constituted to evaluate various allotments and determine, as claimed by the Applicant-Interveners, the differential malkano to be paid by the allottees. A piece of the land was regularized vide letter dated 19-10-2005 and was purchased by one Nabiha Qureshi and Applicant-Intervener No. 02 vide Conve yance Deed dated 25-07-201 1 which was registered with the Sub-Registrar , Gulshan-e-lqbal, Karachi by Mrs. Yasmeen Anwar . The remaining land was purchased by Mrs Shaista Qureshi through an Irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 09-12-201 1.
3. The land claimed by the Applicant-Interveners was offered as per the Applicant-Interveners, for regularization, under section 4(2) of the Sindh Government Lands (Cancellation of Allotment, Conversions, and Exchanges)
Ordinance 2001, vide letter dated 19-01-2012. It is pertinent to mention that it is admitted by the Applicant- Interveners that the land was not regularized. It is, however , claimed by the Counsel for the Applicant-Interveners that, after visiting the land in question, the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners alleged that the land claimed by her was encroached upon by Pakistan Railways and others. As such, she made various attempts to repossess the same.
4. Ultimately , vide letter dated 09-07-2012, the Member Land Utilization, Government of Sindh on her application directed the Deputy Commissioner (East) to furnish a detailed report in this respect. Pursuant thereto, vide letter dated 10-07-2012, the Mukhtiarkar allegedly stated that the site was visited by the Supervising Tapedar and he reported that 23 ghuntas in Survey No. 190 were regularized, however, possession of the same was not handed over. Land of the same value in Survey No. 188 was purportedly available. Hence, 23 ghuntas of land from Survey No. 188 was given to the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners by creating a new Survey No. 653.
5. The case was then forwarded vide letter dated 16-07-2012 for demarcation to the Superintendent Karachi. Vide Ghat Wadh Form No. 76. It is claimed by the Applicant-Interveners that the Additional Deputy Commissioner-II, Karachi (East), vide letter dated 16-07-2019 forwarded the report of the Mukhtiarkar to the Survey Superintendent for necessary action. Ultimately , Survey , No. 653 comprising of 23 ghuntas in Survey No. 188 in Deh-Ghujro, Gulshan-e-Iqbal was created vide letter dated 24-07-2012. It is claimed by the Applicant-Interveners that, according to the said procedure, Entry No. 008 dated 25-07-2012 was made in the Reco rd of Rights. Subsequently , the predecessor of the Applicant/Interveners entered into a sale agreement in respect of which Sale Deed dated 29-10- 2015 regarding the land present in Survey No. 653. Pursuant thereto, it is claimed by the Applicant-Interveners that Entry No. 29 dated 15-1 1-2015 was made in the record of rights.
6. In 2019, Star Marketing (Pvt.) Ltd. published an advertisement in Daily "Jang" Karachi regarding the booking of "Tejori Heights", a multi-storey building, on the land claimed by Pakistan Railways and by the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners (hereinafter referred to as "Disputed Land"). It is claimed by the Applicant-Intervener No. 01 that he has acquired an approved building plan from the SBCA before undertaking the project. Upon gaining knowledge about the said project on the Disputed Land, the suit in question was filed. Vide order dated 23-10- 2020, the High Court appointed an Official Assignee as Commissioner to inspect the Disputed Land and ascertain whether any construction activity was ongoing thereon. It was further ordered that, if the Disputed Land was owned by Pakistan Railways, the construction was to be halted immediately .
7. Since construction was continuing at full swing, an FIR dated 20-11-2020 was lodged by Pakistan Railways in an attempt to stop construction activities on the Disputed Land. On 23-11-2020, the matter was fixed before the Official Assignee. The matter was then adjourned to 04-12-2020. Later , the Applicant-interveners obtained an ex-parte order dated 23-11-2020 against Pakistan Railways in a contempt application for violation of the order dated 23-10- 2020. An interim injunction was granted. Aggrieved thereof, Pakistan Railways and others filed an appeal under Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedur e (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980. It is claimed by the Pakistan Railways that, instead of restraining the Applicant-Interveners from illegally constructing over the land owned. by the Pakistan Railways, the learned Division Bench of the High Court has restrained Pakistan Railways from any coercive action. Resultantly , the illegal construction continues and, the Disputed Land is still illegally occupied by the Applicant-Interveners. Pakistan Railways filed C.M.A. No. 898-K of 2020 in Constitutional Petition No. 09 of 2010 regarding the dispute in question to be dealt with under Article 184(3) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan. The Applicant-Interveners have filed their respective C.M.As. to be impleaded as parties thereto.
8. The learned ASC for the Applicant-Interveners has argued that Applicant-Intervener No. 01 is the exclusive owner of Survey No. 653, measuring 23 ghuntas situated at Deh Ghujro, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi (East) and is constructing thereupon, a project known as Tejori Heights, after having obtained all necessary permissions from the competent authorities. It has been furthe r argued that the project in question is being purportedly built on land which is far from the land of Pakistan Railways and, is not likely to cause any encumbrances in the functioning of the Karachi Circular Railways. It has been further argued that the land measuring 23 ghuntas out of 5-17 acres in Survey No. 190, of the predecessor of the Applicant-Intervener No. 01 was regularized vide letter dated 06-07-2012 bearing No. 01-180-02/SO-I/109/12. The predecessor of Applicant-Intervener No.01 was accordingly issued a challan of Rs.27,83,000/- which was accordingly paid in the State Bank of Pakistan on 04-07-2012. Further , upon inspection, the land in question was found to be encroached upon by the Pakistan Railways. Resultantly , an application was moved before the Govern ment of Sindh, Land Utilization Departme nt for allotment of alternate land in place of Survey No. 190, Deh Ghujro. Learned Counsel further submits that, in response to the said application, the predecessor of the Applicant-Intervener No. 01 was allotted land measuring 23 ghuntas of the same value in Na Class Survey No.188. Consequently , a new Survey No. 653 was created for which demarcation duly took place.
Further , Ghat Form No. 76 was issued by the Supervising Tapedar creating the new said survey No. 653 in Survey No. 188 vide letter dated 24-07-2012. It has been argued that the predecessor of the Applicant-Intervener No. 01, after due diligence and following all formalities executed a Sale Deed dated 29-10-2015 with Naeemuddin.
Pursuant thereto, Naeemuddin made an application to the Muk4itiarkar dated 05-11-2015 who vide order dated 15- 11-2015 made Entry No. 29 in his favour . Thereafter , the Applicant-Interveners started the construction of Tejori Heights. It has been argued that an error was made while executing the sale deed dated 29-10-2015 whereby , the survey number was inadvertently mentioned as 190 instead of 653 in Na Class No. 188. To rectify the same, a Deed of Rectification dated 30-07-2020 was executed as well Such rectification was made about five years after registration of the Sale Deed dated 29-10-2015.
9. The learned Counsel for Pakistan Railways contends that the land was lawfully owned and admittedly possessed by Pakistan Railways. Further , as per the decision taken in a meeting held on 10-02-1980, 81.55 acres of land was jointly demarcated out of which 63.12 acres of land were given to Pakistan Railways. The entire land in question, as argued by the Counsel for Pakistan Railways fell under Survey Nos. 188, 189 and 190 in Deh Ghujro which was acquired for Karachi Circular Railways. It has further been argued that the Applicant-Interveners were denied any claim of ownership to the Disputed Land up to the level of this Court, therefore, their claim to Survey No. 188 is fictitious and misplaced. Further , Defendant No. 07 in the suit of Pakistan Railways i.e., Shaista Qureshi, in a letter dated July 2012, admitted the possession of Pakistan Railways over the Disputed Land. Further , the Applicant-Respondents claimed alternate land in place of Survey No. 190 and, the Mukhtiarkar vide letter dated 10- 07-2012 recommended that alternate land be allotted to the Applicant-Interveners. It has been contended that no alternate land was allotted and the allotment so made was done in Survey No 188 which is also Pakistan Railway's land. Further , the Survey Superintended was directed to demarcate alternate land, and, instead of doing that, he carved out a piece of land from within Survey No. 188 and gave it a new survey number i.e., Survey No. 653.
Based on this, the Applicant-Interveners obtained a NOC dated 08-09-2016 and started the project of Tejori Heights illegally on Pakistan Railway's land, measuring 2783 square yards. It has been further argued that the irrevocable general power of attorney was limited to Survey No. 190 and could not be used to sell any other land/property . As such, the sale of land in Survey Na Class No. 188 was void ab initio. further , the allotments (it) so made are also against the orders dated 21-09-2015.
10. We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The issues which fall before this Court for determination are inter alia as follows:-
(i) The scope of the irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 03-12-201 1?
The validity of the Sale Deed in respect of the land falling in the Surveys?
(iii) The effect of the alternate allotment of land to the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners in Na Class Survey No. 188 in place of the allotment in Survey No. 190?
THE SCOPE OF AUTHORITY OF THE ATTORNEY UNDER THE IRREVOC ABLE GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY DATED 03.12.201 1?
11. The learned Counsel for the Applicant-Interveners has placed an irrevoca ble general power of attorney (hereinafter referred to as "POA") dated 09-12-201 1 issued by Mst. Yasmeen Shah and others in favour of Mrs. Shaista Qureshi who was Defendant No. 07 in the Suit filed by Pakistan Railways. The POA is regarding land falling in Survey No. 190, Deh Ghujro, Tappo Ghujro, Gulshan-e-Iqbal Town, Karachi. It is stated in the said POA that Mst. Yasmeen Shah agreed to "sell, convey and assign" land falling in Survey No. 190 to Mrs. Shaista Qureshi.
The terms of the POA are mentioned therein. It was based on the said POA that Mrs. Shaista Qureshi executed a sale deed with Naeem Uddin, on behalf of the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners. The land in respect of which the said sale deed dated 29-10-2015 was entered, is mentioned therein as Survey No. 190, measuring 23 ghuntas at Deh Ghujro, Tappo Gulshan- e-Iqbal, Taluka Gulshan-e-Iqbal, District East, Karachi. It is pertinent to mention that, through a deed of rectification dated 30-07-2020, the attorney of the predecessor of the Applicant- Interveners stated the following:- "That in the Conveyance Deed in Page No. 03 and Page No. 07, the Survey Number of the Said Property be correctly mentioned as "Survey No. 653 Naclass No. 188" instead of Survey No. 190 and shall be deemed to have been always so inserted in the said Conveyance Deed".
12. It has been argued by the learned ASC that the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners was allotted an alternate piece of land being Survey No. 653 Naclass No. 188 in place of Survey No. 190. The said land was then sold vide the aforenoted sale deed in favour of Naeem Uddin through attorney Mrs. Shaista Qureshi who was empowered through the POA to sell the same. We are unable to agree with this argument of the learned ASC.
Firstly , the fact that the POA was in respect of Survey No. 190 has not been disputed by the Applicant-Interveners, from the outset. Survey No. 190 and Survey No. 188 are two separate pieces of land, which cannot, by any stretch of the imagination, be held to fall under the same Survey number . There is no ambiguity especially in this respect, with regards to the authority of Mrs. Shaista Qureshi in the said POA. This fact has further been admitted by the Applicant-Interveners in paragraph 7(vi) of their C.M.A. which reads as follows:- "That, the remaining land measuring ((Approx.) 5-17 acres was purchased by Mrs. Shaista Qureshi, through an irrevocable General Power of Attorney dated 09-12-201 1, registered at No. 2943, Book No. IV, Sub-Registrar -I, Gadap T own, Karachi". (Underlining is ours)
13. The said POA states that Mrs. Shaista Qureshi was sold 517 acres out of the total area of 13-01 acres of land.
There is nothing in the said POA that confers any implied or express authority upon the said attorney in respect of any other property , except Survey No. 190. A power of attorney is a written authorization under which, the principal appoints a person as his/her agent and confers upon him/her the authority to perform specified acts on his behalf.
A power of attorney must be strictly cons trued and proved. The recital of the POA in question specifically provides that the express authority of Mrs. Shaista Qureshi was admittedly limited to Survey No. 190. It is clear to us that the scope of the POA was limited to Survey No. 190 and therefore, Mrs. Shaista Qureshi could only exercise powers in respect of the said land (if legally proved that it was owned by the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners). The rule of strict construction provides that a power of attorney must be strictly interpreted to ascertain the authority of the agent, acting on behalf of the principa l. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case reported as Imam Din v.
Bashir Ahmed ( PLD 2005 Supreme Court 418 ) wherein, this Court held the following:- "The power of attorney is a written authorization by virtue of which the principal assigns to a person as his agent and confers upon him the authority to perform specified acts on his behalf and thus primary purpose of instrument of this nature is to assign the authority of the principal to another person as his agent. The main object of such type of agency is that the agent has to act in the name of principal and the principal also purports to rectify all the acts and deeds of his agent done by him under the authority conferred through the instrument. In view of nature of authority , the power of attorney must be strictly construed and proved and further the object and scope of the power of attorney must be seen in the light of its recital to ascertain the manner of the exercise of the authority in relation to the terms and conditions specified in the instrument." (Underlining is ours)
14. We are in no manner of doubt to hold that the authority of Mrs. Shaista Qureshi was limited to Survey No. 190 as conferred upon her by the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners, notwithst anding and without prejudice to the fact that the very allotment of Railway land in favour of the original allottee was patently illegal. The contention of the learned ASC in this respect is untenable and is accordingly held to be unsustainable.
THE V ALIDITY OF THE SALE DEED IN RESPECT OF THE LAND F ALLING IN THE SUR VEYS?
15. The learned Counsel for the Applicant-Interveners has argued that the predecessor of the Applicant- Interveners, after being allotted an alternate land in place of Survey No. 190, i.e., Survey No. 653 Naclass No. 188, sold the same through her attorney vide sale deed dated 29-10-2015 registered under No. 4969, dated 20-11-2015 to Naeem Uddin who then, in collaboration with Messrs Karachi Builders and Developers, started constructing Tejori Heights. The main thrust of the Applicant-Intervener's arguments is that all requisite permissions and NOCs were granted to the Applicant-Interveners before the said project was commenced. As such, legal title has been proved and, since the competent authority granted permission to the Applicant-Interveners, their rights cannot be usurped. We are unable to agree with the contention of the Counsel for the Applicant-Interveners. The main and admittedly unchallenged document, based on which the Applicant-Interveners bought the land from Mrs. Shaista Qureshi, is the POA dated 09-12-201 1 which, as noted above, conferred authority only in respect of Survey No. 190 and no other land. Since this Court has already held that the attorney of the predecessor of the Applicant2Interveners could exercise power(s) only to the extent of Survey No. 190, any other transaction which she entered into would be invalid insofar as the land of the Applicant-Interveners is concerned. The fact that the predecessors of the Applicant-Interveners were allotted alternate land i.e., Survey No. 653 Naclass 188 is inconsequential which in any event was done in violation of the law. Even if the original allotment had been lawful, the attorney still did not have the autho rity to agree to sell alternate land on behalf of the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners, whilst acting under the POA which was specific in nature. We have repeatedly asked the learned ASC for the Applicant-Interveners to show us if the POA was at any time amended or, whether any other authority conferring document was given to Mrs. Shaista Qureshi in respect of Survey No. 188. The learned Counsel has been unable to provide us any such document. As a consequence thereof, the sale deed dated 29-10- 2015 is declared invalid. Reliance in this regard is placed on the case of Imam Din ibid wherein, it was held as follows:- "Attorney was not given general authorization for disposal of property in any manner rather his authority of sale was restricted, to sale by registered sale-dee d and consequently his failure to act in the manner as provided in the document rendered the transaction invalid."
16. The learned ASC for the Applicant-interveners has argued that the Survey number was inadvertently written as No.. 190 whereas, it was No. 653 Naclass 188. In this respect, he has relied upon the Deed of Rectification dated 30-07-2020 whereby , an attempt to rectify the sale deed was made through the attorney , by the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners. We are unable to agree with this argument. Firstly , the Deed of Rectification was executed 05 years after the Sale Deed dated 29-10-2015 was made between the parties. Nothing has been brought on the record to show that any attempts were made to get the Sale Deed dated 29-10-2015 cancelled. This effectively means that, in absence of any document on the record to establish that the Sale Deed in question was cancelled, two contradictory documents exit in which on one hand, the Survey number is mentioned as No. 190 and, on the other , it has been mentioned as No. 653 Naclass No. 188 and that too, after 05 years. Merely executing a Deed of Rectification was insuf ficient for the Applic ant-Interveners and could not confer any right, title or interest in the land in dispute. Therefore, the contention of the Counsel of the Applicant-Interveners in this regard is unsustainable in law as well as in fact.
17. Even otherwise, the fact that Mst. Yasmeen Anwar was the purported allottee of Survey No. 190 is further established by the Conveyance Deed dated 25-07-201 1 in favour of the Applic ant-Intervener No. 02 and Ms. Nabiha Qureshi. This fact too extinguishe s any claim that the Applicant-Intervener s could have had on the land in question. This has been admitted by the Applicant-Interveners in Paragraphs 8(ii) and (i) of their C.M.A. which read as follows:- "That, the original allottee of Survey No. 190, DehGujro, TapoGujro, Taluka Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi (East), was one Mst. Yasmeen Anwar , the 'predecessor' in the 'suit" (Underlining is ours)
"That, the 'predecessor' executed a Conveyance Deed dated 25-07-201 1... in favour of the Applicant/Intervener No. 02 and Ms. Nabiha Qureshi in respect of 7-24 acres from Survey No. 190, Deh Gujro, Tapo Gujro, Taluka Gulshan- e-lqbal, Karachi (East)" (Underlining is ours)
THE EFFECT OF THE ALTERNA TE ALLOTMENT OF LAND TO THE PREDECESSOR OF THE APPLICANT - INTER VENORS IN NA CLASS SUR VEY NO. 188 IN PLACE OF THE ALLOTMENT IN SUR VEY NO. 190?
18. The learned ASC has argued that the predecessor , upon knowing that the land claimed by her in Survey No. 190 was purportedly encroached upon by Pakistan Railways, approached the Government of Sindh for redressal.
Ultimately , vide report dated 10-07-2012, the Mukhtiarkar stated that the land in question measuring 23 ghuntas in Survey No. 190 was regularized but, possession was admittedly not with the Predecessor of the Applicant- Interveners. It has been argued that the Mukhtiarkar proposed that the area allegedly under encroachment be given in Naclass Survey No. 188. As a consequence, a new Survey No. 653, within Survey No. 188, was created.
We have asked the learned ASC for the Applicant-Interveners to show us, under what authority of the law could an alternate allotment be made of land which did not belong to the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners. The learned ASC has been unable to provide a cogent or legally sustainable response. The allotment in favour of the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners was made on the proposal of the Mukhtiarkar who too, admitted that they did not have possession of the same. This was patently illegal and could not have been done since the Mukhtiarkar did not have c the authority to make any amendments in the record of rights, in absence of any law that warranted the nine. Further , the land in question admittedly stood acquired and vested in Pakistan Railways/Federal Government. Under what authority of the law were the provincial authorities undertaking allotments/sub-divisions of the same and issuing NOCs and approvals remains a mystery . No attempt has been made to answer this pivotal issue.
19. The fact that the predecessor of the Applicant-Intervener did not have any claim to Survey No. 190 was enough to disentitle her from any further allotment. Notwithstanding the same, an alternate piece of land was allotted to her which was not permitted under the law. There is overwhelming material on the record, establishing the title of Pakistan Railways to the Disputed Land and the Surveys. The said material has been completely ignored and substituted by reports of allotments, the titles of which cannot be traced. The allotment in favour of Mrs. Yasmeen Shah by the Land Utilization Department, Government of Sindh was illegal and unsustainable. Learned Counsel for Pakistan Railways has correctly pointed out that the joint demarcation map in this respect was upheld by this Court vide judgment dated 11-11-1991 Further , the Government of Sindh transferred land to private parties without intimating Pakistan Railways. When confronted with this argument, the learned ASC for the Applicant-Interveners could not provide a satisfactory explanation. It has been established from the record that the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners had no title to Surve y No. 188 and, her attorney could only enter into a transaction in respect of Survey No. 190, the POA in respect of which was never challenged. The fact that the predecessor of the Applicant-Interveners agreed for an alternate illegal allotment automatically means that she surrendered the land she purportedly had a claim to in Survey No. 190 instead of the land in Survey No. 653 Naclass No. 188 which, as per the material on the record, belonged to Pakistan Railways.
20. In absence of any document on the record to show that the Applicant-Interveners had any title to the Disputed Land and, in absence of any material on the record to show that they could be granted any alternate land, and that too, within the land owned by Pakistan Railways, it is held that the project namely Tejori Heights was illegally constructed upon land owned by Pakistan Railways and is liable to be demolished.
21. In view of the foregoing, the C.M.As. of the Applicant-Interveners are dismissed and the C.M.A. of the Pakistan Railways is decided in the aforenoted terms.
22. These are the detailed reasons for our short order dated 29.10.2021 which is as under: "We have heard the submissions of Mian Raza Rabbani and Mr. Abid S. Zuberi, learned counsel for the Applicants as well as Raja Qasit Nawaz Khan, learne d ASC appearing for Pakistan Railways and have gone through the case record. As the Applicants' have failed to establish their title and ownership of the land measuring 0.23 Ghuntas in Survey No.188 (purported Survey No.653) Deh Gujhro, Gulshan-e-lqbal, Karachi (East) on which a building in the name and style of "Tejori Heights" is being constructed, the very construction being contrary to the law is required to be demolished immediately . At this stage, Mian Raza Rabbani, learned ASC appearing for the Applicants makes a categorical statement that the Applicants will themselves demolish the building and in this regard has requested for some reasonable time. We have pointed out to the learned counsel that two weeks' time will be sufficient for the purpose of demolishing the building in question. He, however , requests for four weeks' time for the said purpose.
2. In the circumstances, let the whole building, namely , Tejori Heights, is demolished and its malba cleared from the land by the applicants, positively , within a period of four weeks from today . This activity of demolition and removing of the malba from the land will be undertaken by the applicants under the strict supervision of the Commissioner , Karachi, who will ensure that the applicants do comply with the order of the Cour t in letter and spirit. In case, the applicants fail in demolition of the building and clearing of the malba from the land, the Commissioner , Karachi shall immediately ensure that the building is removed and the land is cleared from the malba and in this respect any cost incurred by the Commissioner , Karachi shall be paid by the applicants. The Commissioner , Karachi shall submit the compliance report before the Court, who shall also be present in Court.
3. Mian Raza Rabbani, learned ASC for the applicants has stated that there is an office premises of the applicants at the building site of Tejori Heights, where files of the people, who have booked the units in the said building are kept and those files are required by the applicants to pay the compensation to the people, who have booked the units in the building i.e. Tejori Heights. The Commissioner , Karachi shall allow the applicants to enter the office premises for removing of the files but before the files are removed by the applicants, the Commissioner , Karachi shall prepare a full and comprehensive inventory of each and every file showing the name and address of the person and whose favour such file exists with full description of the unit booked. The Commissioner , Karachi shall place before the Court the inventory duly signed by him and also by the applicants with his report. The applicants shall immediately pay the compensation to the persons, who have booked the units in the building known as Tejori Heights.
4. Mian Raza Rabbani, learned ASC for the applicant' s requests that three months' time may be allowed to the applicants to pay compensation to the people, who have booked the units in the building, namely , Tejori Heights.
While, we allow three months' time to the applicants to pay the compensation to the persons, who have booked the units in the building Tejori Heights, in case the applicants fail in making the payment of compensation to the persons, who have booked the units in the building Tejori Heights, the Court shall take coercive measures against the applicants to ensure that compliance of the order is made.
5. C.M.A. No. 906-K of 2020 and C.M.As. Nos. 445-K and 446-K of 2021 are dismissed and reasons for such order shall follow ."