| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2015 SLG 1359 2015 SLD 1359 2015 SCMR 294 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeal No.2627 of 2006, decision dated: 9-12-2014
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND QAZI FAEZ ISA, JJ
Anwar Mansoor Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Tanvir-ul-Islam, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record
Civil Appeal No.2627 of 2006, decision dated: 9-12-2014
IJAZ AHMED CHAUDHRY, DOST MUHAMMAD KHAN AND QAZI FAEZ ISA, JJ
Anwar Mansoor Khan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellant. Tanvir-ul-Islam, Advocate Supreme Court and Raja Abdul Ghafoor, Advocate-on-Record
MUHAMMAD IKHLAQ MEMON
VS
CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through ChairmaN
Law:
Section:
(a) Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960)--- ----Preamble---Auction of plots---Payment of auction money by successful bidder---Non-availability of plots for allotment---Effect---Return of auction money---Appellant was successful bidder in respect of two plots in Orchard Farms Scheme---Appellant deposited 25% of the total amount as auction money and was willing to pay the balance amount upon completion of acceptance letters---Capital Development Authority (CDA) did not hand over the possession of plots to the appellant as third parties were occupying the same and had instituted litigation wherein the court had passed stay orders, and there were no other plots available for allotment---Appellant filed constitutional petition before Single Judge of the High Court, which was disposed of with the direction to Capital Development Authority to refund the auction money to the appellant---Intra-Court appeal filed against of Single Judge of High Court was also dismissed---Validity---Appellant in his constitutional petition did not attribute any mala fides to the Capital Development Authority and acknowledged that plots were in possession of third parties, who had obtained stay orders---Capital Development Authority did not issue the requisite acceptance and allotment letters to the appellant nor did the appellant himself tender the balance price (75%) or offer to deposit the same in court---On the contrary the appellant wrote to Capital Development Authority to refund the 25% amount deposited---Under such circumstances, order of Single Judge was fair and reasonable and the appellant should not have objected when his own request for refund was granted by the court---Permitting the appellant to retain his rights in respect of the plots, having paid only 25% of the price, would give him an undue benefit/advantage at the cost of the public, as the value of the money had historically depreciated whilst the value of land had increased---Appeal was dismissed accordingly. (b) Capital Development Authority Ordinance (XXIII of 1960)--- ----Preamble--- "Public interest"--- Capital Development Authority was a statutory organization and had to act in the public…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492