1. ' This suit is filed by the plaintiff for declaration and recover of a sum of Rs.1,09,145.30 against the defendant K.D.A. The facts leading to the institution of the above suit as alleged in the plaint ar as follows:- ' The plaintiff on or about 22-12-1967 applied to the defendan for allotment of a industrial plot in the Korangi Township, Karachi. The plaintiff was allotted plot bearing No.1/17 admeasuring 9,618 sq. yds. at the rate of Rs.4 per sq. yd. However, on demarcation, th plot was found to be measuring 9,922.22 sq. yd. The plaintiff paid th entire occupancy value of the above plot at the rate of Rs.4 per sq. yds.
2. Whereupon allotment order and possession order dated 13-6-1968 were issued in favour of plaintiff but the possession was delivered on 4-7-1968. That by a notification dated 22-9-1971 the Governer of Sind, amended K.D.A. (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1971, and new rule 11-A was added to the existing rules, which provided that the cost of al industrial plots in the schemes of the defendant except Landhi Schemes No.3 and 4, and Federal 'B' Area, Scheme No.16; will be Rs.15 pe sq. yd. The defendant accordingly demanded from the plaintiff a sum of Rs.1,09,145.30 being the difference in the price of plot allotted t plaintiff in Korangi Scheme. The plaintiff has challenged the above demand of additional price of the plot in suit on the basis of notification dated 22-9-1971, as illegal, unlawful and ultra vires. The defendant in its Written Statement has stated that the plot in suit was originally alloteed to one Messrs Saadat Industries Limited at a provisional rate of Rs.4 per sq. yd. subject to fixation of final rate by the Government. It is further stated that the rates have been finally fixed by the Government of Sind under the notification dated 22-9-1971 at the rate of 15 per sq. yd. which the plaintiff is liable to pay. The locus standi of the plaintiff to file the present suit is also challenged by the defendant. On the pleadings of the parties the following consent issues were framed by the Court on 13-9-1976:- "(1) Whether- the plaintiff company has no locus standi to file the suit?
(2) Whether the plot was allotted at a provisional rate subject to fixation of final rate by Government?
(3) At what rate the defendant is entitled to recover the occupancy value of the plot allotted to Saadat Industries?
(4) Whether any proper legal notice was served upon the defendant, if not, its effect?
(5) What should the decree be?
(6) What is the effect of notification dated 21-9-1971 in relation to issue No.3."
3. ' On the above issues the parties have filed documents by consent which are exhibited on record as Exhs. 5 to 33. Besides the above documentary evidence, the plaintiff has examined one Jalil Ahmed, an employee of the plaintiff Exh. 34 and has Produced through him documents Exhs. 34/1 to
36. The defendant hag also examined one of their employees Mohammad Razaq (Exh.37).
4. ' I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and y findings on the above issues are as follows:- Issue No. 1.-- This issue has, been raised by the defendant. It is contended on behalf of the defendant that the plot in suit was originally allotted to Messrs Saadat Industries Limited and, therefore, Hand Tools company Limited, the present plaintiff, have no locus standi to file the present suit. The allotment order, possession order and other corres condence .produced in the case are all in the name of Saadat Industries limited. The contention of the plaintiff, however, is that the plaintiff as originally incorporated under the name and style of Saadat Industries united but later on, in the year 1973 the name of the Company was changed from Saadat Industries Limited to Hand Tools Limited with the permission of the Registrar, Joint Stock Companies. The plaintiff in support of their contention has produced in evidence Exh. 34/1, which s a certificate issued by Assistant Registrar, Joint Stock Companies, Rawalpindi Division,, on 6th November, 1973, certifying that under the orders of the Government dated 22nd October, 1973, the name of Saadat Industries Limited has been changed to Hand Tools Limited. The genuineness of this Certificate is not disputed by the defendant. Section 1(6) of the Companies Act, clearly provides that the change of name f of a Company shall not affect any right or obligation of company or sender defective any legal proceedings by or against the company and any legal proceedings that might have been continued or commenced against it by its new name. In view of this legal position there is n substance in the contention of the defendant that the plaintiff had n focus standi to institute the present suit. Apart from it, I may als ention here, that the parties ailed a consent application in the suit nder section 151, C.P.C. (C.M.A.
5. No.135/75), on 27-1-1975 wherein efendant agreed to sign and execute a deed of lease in favour of the laintiff in suit in respect of the above plot, and the plaintiff was llowed to amend the plaintiff and seek a relief in respect of the dditional amount of lease money amounting to Rs.1,09,145.30 paid by the plaintiff. This application was accepted by the Court and thereafter defendant executed a registered lease dated 1-2-1975 in favour of the plaintiff in respect of the plot in suit which is Exh.
36. The defendant further on the basis of the certificate of Registrar dated 6-11-1973 (Exh,34/1) allowed the change of name from Saadat Industries Limited to Messsrs Hand Tools Limited in the original allotment order dated 13-6-1968. In these circumstances I find no substance in the objection raised by the defendant with regard to the locus standi of the plaintiff. I accordingly hold that the suit by the plaintiff is competent.
6. Issues Nos. 2, 3 and 6.-- All these issues are inter-connected and can be conveniently disposed of together. From copies of the documents exhibited on record by consent of parties it is clear that the defendant by its letter dated 15-5-1968 addressed to the plaintiff with reference to their application dated 22-12-1967, informed that the .governing body of the defendant has decided to allot the plaintiff an industrial plot measuring 9,918 sq yds. on the terms and conditions mentioned in that letter. One of the conditions mentioned in the letter was that the occupancy value of the plot was fixed at Rs.4 per sq. yd. subject to the Government decision on reference made by the K.D.A. regarding enhancement of the rate of occupancy value of the industrial plot. The plaintiff was called upon in that letter to deposit with the K.D.A. a sum of Rs.4,840' being the balance 9f the 50% of the occupancy value to enable the defendant to issue necessary allotment order. It appears that the amount mentioned in that letter was paid by the plaintiff, as on 13th June 1968, the plaintiff was issued the allotment order and possession order. The allotment order is produced in evidence as Exh. 7 which states that the plot in suit has been allotted to the plaintiff on the terms and conditions enclosed which is Exh.5. Paragraph 6 of Exh.5 which relates to the price of the plot reads as under:- "6.The price of the plot including costs of land and land development shall be charged at the rate of Rs.9 per sq. yd: in addition to the ground rent to be paid at 2 paisa per sq.yd. per annum from the date of taking over possession of the plot."
7. ' The above term in the allotment order which relates to the pric does not show that it is provisional and subject to fixation by Government. Apart from it, the parties have produced in evident Exh.10 which is 'a letter dated 1st March, 1971, addressed to the .Director-General of the 'defendant by a Section Officer of Loca Government Department, Government of Sind. This letter Exh.10 shows that the plot in Korangi Industrial Area, were originally sold at the rate of Rs.10 per sq. yd. as per orders of the Central Government but these Orders were later on revised on 19th August 1963, and it was decided that the price of the industrial plot in Korangi area should be reduced from Rs.10 to Rs. 4 per sq.yd. for all sizes of plots in order to encourage industrialization in the area. It is further stafed in that letter that in view of these instructions it is clear that the industries which were allotted plots before the date of issue of the order of revision of price of the plots dated 19th August, 1963 were to be charged at the rate of Rs 10 per sq.yd. only. This letter further states that the Finance Department of the Government of Sind has advised that this reduction of price was prospective and not, retrospective and necessary orders in this behalf were issued and conveyed to the K.D.A. by a letter dated 10th February. 1970, and these orders still hold good and do not require any revision/clarification. The contentional of the learned counsel for the defendant with regard to this letter. Exh.10, that by virtue of P.O. Order VI of 1962 which was promulgated on 27-3-1962 K.D.A. Order V of 1975 was amended and for the words "Federal Territory of Karachi, wherever occurring the 'words "Karachi Division" was substituted and for the words "Central Government" wherever occurring except in articles 1, 3, 8, 20, 87, 98., 104, 117 and 120, the words "Provincial Government" shall in all places substituted. It is accordingly contended by the learned counsel for the defendant that as a result of the aforesaid amendment in K.D.A. Order the "Central Government" was divested of all powers to pass., any Order with regard to K.D.A. The contention of the learned counsel has not impressed me. The letter Exh.10 is filed alongwith the plaint as Exh.D and is specifically referred in paragraph 5 of the plaint. The defendant in the written statement made following reply to para 5 of the plaint.
8. ' That the contents of pare 5 of plaint are admitted only to the extent of the issuance of the letter in question by the Provincial Government but it is submitted that the said letter was issued only in clarification of the Central Government decision contained in letter dated; 19-8-1963, clarifying whether the said decision applied or did not apply to allotments made earlier than 19-8-1963. The Provincial Government letter did not pertain to allotments in which the rate had been' provisionally fixed at Rs.4 per sq.yd. subject to final decision by Government. It is further submitted that the final decision was taken by Government and the rate for industrial plots was fixed at Rs.15 per sq.yd. as prescribed under the Allotment Rules of 1971."
9. 'A reading of the above paragraph of the written statement will show that the vires of Order of Central Government mentioned in this lette was never challenged by the defendant. It was only contended tha Exh. 10 was issued in clarification of the Central Government decision contained in the letter dated 19-8-1983 and that this letter did no pertain to reduction in case where the rate had been provisionall fixed at Rs.4 per sq.yd. subject to final decision of the Government In view of this clear position taken by the defendant in their writte statement with regard to Exh.10 they cannot now be allowed to urg that the letter Exh.10 was issued without jurisdiction. Apart from the letter Exh.,10 is riot issued by the Central Government but it is issued by the Local Government Department of Government of Sind t the Director-General of the K.D.A., confirming the decision regardin reduction of the price from Rs. 10 to Rs. 4 in the industrial area o Korangi. It is not contended before me that the Provincial Government could not reduce the price of plots in Korangi area from Rs. 10 to Rs. 4 in line with the decision of the Central Government taken earlier in this behalf. I also find that in the terms and conditions of the fina allotment issued in favour of the plaintiff there is no mention that th price of Rs. 4 per sq.yd. fixed for the plot in suit is provisional o tentative and subject to final fixation by the Government. The learned counsel for the defendant has relied on the notification Exh.34/3 issued by the Government of Sind on 21st September, 1971 adding rule 11-A after rule 11 in K.D.A. (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1971, and contended that as a result of this amendment in the rule the defendants are entitled to charge the price of Rs.15 per sq.yd. in respect of the suit land. First of all the newly-added rule relied by he learned counsel for the defendant is only prospective in its operation and, therefore, could not apply to transactions which were past and closed. Secondly the newly-added rule lays down a complete procedure for allotment of lands under this rule besides fixing the ocupancy value of the industrial plot in various schemes of defendant which clearly indicates that it is applicable only to those allotments which are to be made after the date of this notification. The notification dated 22-9-1971, relied by the learned counsel for the defendant, therefore, clearly has no application to the present case. As a result of the above discussion I hold that the defendants were only entitled to recover the occupany value of the plot in suit at the rate of Rs.4 per sq.yd. and this rate was not provisional and subject to final fixation by the Government, and the notification dated 22-9-1971 did not apply to the plot in suit.
10. Issue No.4.-- The plaintiff has produced in evidence Exh.14 which is a notice addressed to the Director, Housing Societies Karachi Development Authority, which sets out in detail the case of the plaintiff. The receipt of this letter is not denied and the learned counsel for the defendants is unable to show that this letter was not in accordance with the law. I accordingly, hold that a proper and legal notice was served on the defendants before institution of the suit.
11. Issue No.5.-- In view of my finding on issues Nos. 2, 3 and 6 I hold that the demand and recovery of additional price of the plot in suit byF the defendant amounting to Rs.1;09,145.30 is illegal and I accordingly pass a decree in the sum of Rs.1,09,145.30 in favour of the plaintiff.
12. ' The plaintiff will also be entitled to the .costs of the suit.