' SYED ABDUR REHMAN, J.---This is a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.
2. The petitioner is the owner of residential Flat No,B-8, First Floor, Arika Apartment, Block 16, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, having booked it directly from the construction company, which delivered the possession to him in July, 1982. The respondent No,3 without issuing any notice to the petitioner in respect of this flat, made ex parte assessment thereof on 30-12-1984 at Rs,18,000 per annum although he had assessed other similar flats in the same building at a much less amount.
The petitioner on coming to know of the said order filed an appeal before the respondent No,2, who directed him to first get his name entered in the ownership column and to pay half of the amount of the assessm ent. Accordingly, the petitioner got his name inserted in the P.T. 1 on 1-7-1985 and also paid half of the assessed taxes from 1-7-1982 to 30-6-1986. Respondent No,3 then heard the appeal and passed an order on 30-8-1985, maintaining the assessment of Rs,18,000 per annum up to 30-6-1985, and reducing it to Rs,10,800 w,e,f, 1-7-1985 on the plea that ownership of the unit was changed on 27-7-1985. According to the petitioner this plea is absolutely incorrect. Hence he filed Revision Application before the respondent No,1, who rejected the same on 14-12-1985 on the ground that the petitioner had been given notice but he did not furnish the required information, therefore, the information collected by the respondent's field staff that the flat was sold to Mr. Farooqui was believed. According to the petitioner this is also incorrect and baseless. Neither he had sold the flat to Mr. Farooqui nor any information was collected by respondent's field staff.
Hence this petition.
3. Parawise comments were not available on the record although respondents' counsel claims that he had filed the same. Hence we obtained the photostat copy of the same from the respondents' counsel. In para. 9 of the parawise comments the respondents have admitted the petitioner's contentions except that it is alleged that the name of a different person was entered as owner of the flat on the basis of information received by the field staff of the respondent, as the petitioner had not appeared in response to the notice issued to him. It is then contended in the comments that since there was change of ownership, therefore, the assessment was also changed. With regard to the discrimination made in case of the petitioner's flat vis-a-vis similar flats in the same building, it is stated that the petitioner's flat was not self-occupied while the flats referred to by the petitioner, were occupied by their owners themselves.
4. We have heard Mr. S.H. Rizvi Advocate and petitioner in person, and Mr. Vakil Ahmed Qureshi, Advocate for respondent No,1.
5. The petitioner has filed an affidavit in support of his petition, and has also filed re-joinder affidavit in reply to the parawise comments. As against this there is no counter-affidavit whatsoever from the respondent's side. P.T.1 form on basis of which the first ex parte assessment was made by respondent No,3 does not show the name of any owner in column No,4 instead the word "owner" is written. This falsifies the plea of the respondent that any notice was given to petitioner or that their field staff had ascertained the name of the owner of the flat on basis of which it was claimed that the petitioner was the second owner.
6. Mr. Vakil Ahmed Qureshi, has referred us to the impugned order passed by the respondent No,1 wherein the name of one Mr. Farooqui is shown as an owner.
7. Mr. S.H. Rizvi states that Mr. Farooqui was not the person who had got the flat booked but he is a person to whom the petitioner has now agreed to sell the flat but has not transferred the ownership to him as yet by taking any further steps. It is the petitioner's case that the ownership as well as possession of the flat continues to remain with the petitioner uptil now.
' We are, therefore, satisfied that the findings of the respondents that the petitioner was not the first owner of the flat or that Mr. Farooqui was the first owner and the petitioner had acquired the flat from him on 30-6-1985 and that the petitioner was not occupying the flat himself are based on no evidence, illegal, mala fide and of no effect. In these circumstances, we allow the petition, and set aside the orders of the respondents Nos,1 to 3 dated 14-12-1985, 20-3-1985 and 30-12-1984 respectively, and direct the respondent No,3 to re-assess the petitioner's flat in accordance with law.