1. ' ABDUL RAHIM KAZI, J.--By this judgment we propose to dispose of the above two said petitions as both involve identical facts and legal points.
2. ' The facts are that Plot No,34, St.32, Block 1, Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi admeasuring 100 square yards in Petition No,D-196/82 originally was allotted to one Abdul Karim while Plot No,33 St.32, Block 1, Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi admeasuring 100 square yards was allotted to one Muhammad Saeed. Both of the above allottees transferred their respective plots for consideration to the present petitioners. The original allottees had paid the occupancy and ground rent upto December, 1982. The above two original allottees transferred for consideration the said plots to the present petitioners and on 6-8-1981 the petitioners paid transfer fee of Rs,250 in each case which was deposited in bank through challan and consequently the mutation was effected in their names on 26-8-1981. The petitioners further claim that they had paid No-Objection Certificate fee of Rs,250 as per clause 17 of the lease-deed and notice regarding transfer was also got published in the newspaper under the 'directions of the respondents. It is further the case of the petitioners that. In consequence of above a lease-deed was executed by the respondent in favour of the petitioners on 19-9-1981, which was got registered also and was signed by the respondent No,2 who was the Administrative Officer of the respondent K.D.A. And all the payments were made under his authority. It is also claimed that the present petitioners have paid the ground rent upto December 1983. e said lease-deed, challans and all of the above-referred documents have been placed on record by the petitioners. It is alleged that on 9-3-1982 the respondent No,2 demolished the boundary wall and one temporary room which the petitioners, in each case, had constmettd on their respective plots wherein they had stored the construction material for the purposes of raising their construction. The respondent No,2 also denied the title of the petitioners and therefore present petition was filed with the prayer in each case:-
(A) To declare that the petitioner is the rightful legal owner of property bearing Plot No,34, St.32, Block I, Shah Faisal Colony/Township, Karachi.
(B) To declare that the impugned notice/order dated 10-3-1982 as aforesaid is illegal, of no legal effect and a nullity in the eyes of law.
(C) To permanently restrain, the respondents, their servants, agents or any one acting under or on their behalf from any manner whatever, from interfering with the ownership, possession and enjoyment of the property as described herein.
(D) To grant any other relief and reliefs as deemed fit.
(E) To award costs of this petition.
3. ' The respondents have filed their parawise comments as well as counter-affidavit of one Mashhoodul Hasan who is said to be Assistant nirector Shah Faisal Township K.D A. With his counter-affidavit he has produced lay-out plan of the Township. We have heard Mr. S.M. A.
4. Mahmood Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Sabir Hussain Qazilbash for the K.D.A. The petitioners' counsel has reiterated the shove facts as contained in the memo of petition and in support of his version he has relied on the documents i.e, lease-deed, mutation order, bank challan, N.0 and advertisement in the newspaper etc. The above said documents clearly show that the said plots did exist in the K.D.A. Record which were validly transferred in the names of the petitioners and the petitioners acquired the legal 'ease-hold right in the said plots by virtue of the lease-deed dated A 10-9-1981. This is a registered lease-deed and it cannot simply be ignored by the respondent Authority unless the same is got set aside through process of law.
5. ' On the other hand the contention of the learned counsel for the respondent is that as per the lay- out plan produced with the counter-affidavit , the above-said plots i.e, , Nos. 34 and 33 respectively do not exist on the site. This lay-out plan, produced by the respondent is only a photostat copy which does not bear any signature of any authority, as against this the lease-deed brought on record by the petitioners also contained a site plan which is duly initialled by Anis Ahmad Administrative Officer, who is respondent No,2 in the present petitions. This site plan not only shows the existence of the plots but also gives their measurements and the boundary on the four sides.
6. This plan is a part of the lease-deed which is also signed by the said Rais Ahmad respondent No,2.
7. ' In view of the above facts we cannot bring ourselves to agree with the contention of the respondents that the said plots did not exist on the site. In present case the site plan and the lease- deed were signed by the respondent No,2 himself, and the payments were made under his authority and also a notice was published in the newspaper. In these circumstances we fail to understand as to how the respondents can now go back on their own act and deny these facts.
8. ' In view of the above, we find no substance in the stand taken by the respondents and allow the present petition and declare that the registered lease-deed executed by respondent in favour of the petitioner subsists so long as the same exists and is not declared as void by competent Court of law. We also declare that subject to above condition the petitioner is legally entitled to the lease-hold rights of the plot in dispute and that impugned notice dated 10-3-1982, issued by respondent is without lawful authority. The petition is, therefore, allowed with costs.