' The brief facts of the case are that the applicant/Karachi Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as the K. D. A.) allotted Plot No, 179 in Sector 27 Korangi Industrial Zone Karachi to the respondent for setting up fodder industry and allied business. The allotment was made on 30th July, 1964, consideration thereof was payable in instalments which admittedly has already been paid to the applicants.
2. The possession of the plot pursuant to the allotment order was agreed to be delivered by the K. D.
A. To the respondent within one month of the allotment (clause 3 of the terms and conditions of the allotment).
' It was further provided that the allottee shall start installation of the industry within six months of taking over possession of the plot, start running one self-sufficient unit of the industry within two years and complete installation of the entire industry within three years. Vide clause 4 it was agreed that the allotment shall not confer any right, title or interest on the allottee and it will only be a licence to occupy the plot allotted and to utilize it for installing the industry for which it has been allotted till a 99 years lease agreement was executed and duly registered in due course of time by the K. D. A. Under clause 17 it was further provided that the buildings required for running the industry or for other purpose, shall be constructed after prior approval of the plans by the competent authority and not otherwise. The other clause relevant for the purposes of this appeal is clause 19 which provides that if the allottee fails to comply with any of the terms and conditions the allotment shall be liable to be cancelled and the allottee shall be ejected from the building in question in addition to any other action that may be taken against him by the competent authority for such misrepresentation.
3. The possession of the plot however was not delivered to the respondent by the K. D. A. Within one month, of the date of allotment, instead it was delivered on 29th October, 1964 i. e. After about six months.
' After receiving possession of the plot the respondent submitted plan for approval in April, 1965 which was sanctioned on 3rd August, 1965 vide Exh. 16 by the Architect Control of the K. D. A.
Wherein it was provided that the said sanction shall hold good only if the work was commenced within one year from the date thereof failing which it shall be deemed to have lapsed. The respondent applied for grant of water connection which was deposited on 24th November, 1965.
4. According to the respondent as he was about to commence the work, a notice was received by him on 18th July, 1965 (Exh. 23) followed by another notice, dated 18th August, 1965 (Ex. 30) whereby the K. D. A. Called upon the respondent to show cause as to why the allotment order should not be cancelled for his failure to commence construction on the aforesaid plot within the stipulated time.
The respondent sent a reply, dated 26th August, 1965 (Exh. 24) wherein he explained the reasons for the delay, pointing out that the plan for cftstruction of the plot was approved only on 3rd August, 1965 and as such the cause of the delay was not due to any default on his part. He further stated that he had applied through the licensed plumber for water connection and as soon as the water was supplied the construction would be started. Thereafter without giving any opportunity of being heard to the respondent, the allotment of the plot was cancelled, by the K. D. A. By notice, dated 15th December, 1965 (Exh. 9).
5. In the circumstances the plaintiff/respondent served notice, dated 5th February, 1966 under Article 131 of K. D. A. Of his intention to file suit to which no reply was received. This led to the filing of the suit on 22nd March, 1966 being Suit No, 132/66 in the Court of the Civil Judge, First Class at Karachi for declaration that the K. D. A. Had no right to cancel the allotment and the notice, dated 5th December, 1965 was illegal ultra vires and for grant of permanent injunction.
6. The K. D. A. Contested the suit and filed their written statement.
' Upon pleadings of the parties number of issues were framed. The argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants however was limited to the right of K. D. A. To cancel the allotment in exercise of powers reserved under clause 3 for failure of the allottee/respondent to start/construction of industry within six months of delivery of possession of plot. It would, therefore, be relevant to reproduce hereinbelow the said clauses Nos. 3 and 17 of the Terms and Conditions on which the allotment was made :- "Clause 3. The allottee shall take possession of the site within one month(s) of the Allotment Order therefor and shall start installation of the industry within six months of taking over possession of the plot start, running one self-sufficient unit of the industry within two years and will complete installation of the entire industry within three years."
"Clause 17. Buildings required for running the industry, or for other purpose, shill be constructed after prior approval of the plans by the competent authority and not otherwise."
7. The defendant/K. D. A. Examined Mr. Qamaruz Zaman, Assistant Administrative Officer, in their department while the plaintiff examined himself on his own behalf.
' The learned Civil Judge by judgment and decree passed on 12th November, 1971 dismissed the suit against which the respondent/plaintiff filed, Civil Appeal No, 165/71 which was heard and disposed of by the learned Vth Additional District Judge at Karachi, who allowed the said appeal and decreed the suit as prayed.
8. The K. D. A. Has now preferred this revision application under section 115, C. P. C., against the judgment and decree passed by the learned First Appellate Court.
9. The learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the K. D. A. Were justified to cancel the allotment under clause 3 of the Terms and Conditions (Exh. 4) on which the allotment was made. It was further argued that the fact that the plan was approved by K. D. A. Authority on 3rd August, 1965 (Exh. 17) could not give any cause to the respondent to challenge the cancellation of the allotment which action was taken as the respondent had failed to start the construction of the building and installation of industry within the stipulated period of six months.
10. The case has not been argued before me on the issues as framed in the suit. The submission of the learned' counsel for the appellants is that the respondent was in breach of the Terms and Conditions on which the plot was allotted to him as he failed to start installation of the industry within six months from 3rd August, 1965 which was the date of taking over possession of the plot.
Reliance was placed on clause 3 which has been reproduced in para. 6 above.
' In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned counsel for the appellants, it is important to bear in mind the fact that the allotment Exh. 2 was made on 30th July, 1954 for the purposes of raising construction and running an industry and that the total consideration was duly paid to the appellants by the respondent. According to the Terms and Conditions (Exh. 4) of the allotment the appellants were under an obligation in the first instance to deliver possession of the plot to the allottee within one month of the date of allotment. They however did not do so till 29th October, 1964. The delivery of possession of the plot to the respondent by the appellants was thus made after about more than three months as against the stipulated period of one month. The next important fact to be noticed is that, the respondent applied for grant of approval of the building plans in April, 1965 i. e. Well-within six months of the delivery of possession to enable him to start construction of the building. The concerned Officers of the appellants however took several months to approve plans. The appellants accorded the requisite approval after expiry of four months vide (Exh. 17), dated 3rd August, 1965 by which the respondent was further expressly informed that "The building plans for the above-mentioned plot attached herewith are hereby approved and you are permitted to carry out construction on the said plot accordingly : ' Provided this holds good only if the work is started within one year from date whereafter it shall be deemed to have lapsed."
' The appellants' witness Mr. Qamaruzzaman (Exh. 25) in his evidence admitted that the respondent (allottee) could not raise construction on the plot without approved plan. He further admitted in this cross-examination that the plan was submitted by the respondent for approval within time (six months). We have already seen above that the delay took place at the end of the K. D. A.
Themselves whose concerned officers took several months in according the requisite sanction and thus made it impossible for the respondent to commence the construction or installation of the industry within the stipulated period.
' It would also be relevant to mention here that the respondent had applied for water-connection on 28th August, 1965 and the necessary water charges were accepted by the appellants, on 24th November, 1965. It is an admitted fact that till the building plans were approved by the appellants and water-connection was provided by the appellants, construction work could not have been taken in hand by the respondent.
In the light of the above discussion we find that the appellants themselves had firstly delayed delivery of possession by three months, secondly accorded approval (Exh. 17) to the building plans on 3rd August, 196 after a delay of about four months, and lastly water counection was granted (charges were accepted) on 24th November, 1965. Vide letter of approval (Exh. 17), dated 3rd August, 1965 the allottee/respondent was informed that he was permitted to carry out the construction on the plot provided work was started within one year. There is force in the arguments that the respondent was thus led to believe that construction could be started within this period. In the circumstances the blame and in any case the entire blame could not be placed upon the respondent/allottee for not having commenced the installation of the industry within six months.
' The above facts on the contrary lead to the inference that the K. D. A. Themselves had caused the delay in delivery of possession and thereafter committed further delays, and therefore were not justified to cancel the allotment.
11. The purported action of the appellants in cancelling the allotment also cannot be sustained as being against the principles of natural justice. The learned counsel for the appellants admitted that to the show-cause notice, dated 18th July, 1965 (Exh. 23) the respondent submitted his explanation on 26th August, 1965 (Exh. 24) whereby he repudiated the allegations made against him and he further pointed out various factors for which K.D.A./Appellants were stated to be themselves responsible for having caused the delay. In spite of the receipt of the explanation to the show- cause notice, the appellants proceeded to cancel the allotment by their letter, dated 15th December, 1965 (Exh. 9) without affording any opportunity of being heard to the respondent. This unilateral act of the appellants/K. D. A. Was obviously against the well-recognised principle of natural justice. If any authority is needed reference be made to the case of Noor Muhammad B and others v. K. D. A. (1) where a learned Division Bench of this Court consisting of Mr. Justice Muhammad Haleem (as he then was) and Mr. Z.A. Channa held :- "Paragraph 19 of the application form specifically provides that in case of breach of any of the conditions stated in the application form, the K. D. A. Would have the right, by notice in writing, to cancel the allotment. This, however, does not mean that the K. D. A. Or the Chairman would act in an arbitrary, discriminating or in a capricious manner or that the allottee was not to be given a fair opportunity of representing his case or that any representation or cause shown by him was not to be examined or taken into consideration."
' Similar view was taken by another learned Division Bench in the case of Yar Muhammad v. K. D. A.
(2), where it was observed :- "The mere fact that an allotment order could be cancelled without giving reason does not abrogate the rule of natural justice that the aggrieved party has to be heard before an order affecting his right is passed. The allotment order issued in favour of the petitioner's father conferred an important right upon him. In fact the reason given by respondent No, 1, in its letter, dated 17th October, 1973, for cancelling the allotment in favour of petitioner's father was that the old allotment order in favour of Hidayatullah had been cancelled without notice to him."
In the light of the authoritative pronouncements referred to above, have no hesitation in concluding that the impugned action of appellants
(1) PLD 1975 Kar. 373 (2) PLD 1976 Kar. 830 ' cancelling the allotment of the respondent was arbitrary and vitiated as being arbitrary and in violation of principle of natural justice.
12. For the reasons stated above I find that the judgment of the learned First Appellate Court is in accordance with the law and the facts on record, and that no illegality, infirmity or irregularity has been pointed out to call for any interference with the same by this Court in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under section 115, C. P. C.
' The revision application is accordingly dismissed. There shall however be no order as to costs.