Law:

Section:

✅ Summary The appellant company challenged land allotments made by Port Qasim Authority (PQA) to private respondents, claiming violation of a prior compromise decree and land grant policies. Appellant argued: It was allotted 200 acres for setting up a steel mill. PQA illegally allotted parts of this land to others, making their land unusable. Respondents argued: The matter is already pending before the Supreme Court. Possession has been legally handed over to other parties. Court findings: The appellant failed to establish illegality in allotments. The appellant had already benefited by selling 116 acres to K-Electric. The industry was never set up, weakening appellant’s claim. 👉 Court dismissed the appeals and upheld earlier orders. 📌 Directions: All suits to be consolidated and decided expeditiously Strict timelines for: Written statements Evidence Final decision (within 4 months) PQA directed to improve governance and infrastructure and submit a report. ⚖️ Sections / Laws Used Civil Procedure Code (CPC) (general procedural framework for suits, evidence, consolidation) Land Grant Policy / PQA Rules (administrative framework for allotment) Reference to Compromise Decree (Execution Proceedings) Proceedings pending before Supreme Court (CPLA) (No specific statutory section explicitly cited in the order) 🧾 Two 2-Word Case Descriptions Land Allotment Industrial Dispute       ORDER SHEET Due to commonity all these three Appeals are decided by this Order. Briefly, present Appellant-Industrial Management & Investment Company Limited has preferred two Suits No.52 and 53 of 2019, against private Respondents, challenging the allotment in their favour by Respondent-Port Qasim Authority (PQA); whereas, Suit No.637/2022 was preferred by Respondent-Hassan Ali Rice Export Company Limited (Rice Company), inter alia, seeking possession. The learned Single Bench, after hearing all the Counsel and in particular the Senior Official from PQA, dismissed the injunction applications of the present Appellant and allowed that of Rice Company.   Learned Counsel for the Appellant states that PQA is continuously violating the terms of the…