Syed SAJID ALI Versus CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI
SHAUKAT ALI MEMON, J.--- Through this petition, notice/order dated 01.10.2009, issued by the respondent No.2 and all public notices and proceedings taken thereunder have been challenged as being without lawful authority and jurisdiction. The consequential relief of recovery to be effected by respondent No.2 has also been impugned.
2. The facts as pleaded by the petitioner as well as stated in the counter affidavit filed by the respondent C.D.G.K. are that the petitioner is lessee/owner of the plot No.C-120, Block-14, Scheme-36 (Gulistan-e-Jauhar) originally allotted to one Syed Fakir Ali Shah son of Syed Allan Shah, the then member provincial assembly Sindh by the then Chief Minister Sindh in February 1988. The Government of Sindh subsequently in the year 2001 promulgated the Sindh Ordinance III of 2001 whereby cancellation of certain allotments, conversions or exchanges of the urban government land obtained or granted for residential, commercial or industrial purposes at the rate lower than market value in violation of law or ban was intended. In pursuance of this Ordinance the public notice demanding differential value calculated on the basis of market value was demanded and in consequences impugned notice/order was served upon the petitioner which aggrieved him, hence the instant petition is filed for relief stated, hereinabove.
3. During course of arguments learned counsel for respondent C.D.G.K. invited our attention to parts of indemnity bond executed by the petitioner whereby he undertook to indemnify the K.D.A. against all losses or damages if any that may be occasioned to the authority by transfer of the said property. The petitioner has further agreed to abide-by all the rules and regulations of K.D.A. which are enforced or those to be enforced in future and contended that vires of Ordinance being part of Sindh legislation cannot be challenged until and unless said Ordinance is amended/modified in favour of petitioner and others having similar grievance. Learned counsel further argued that this is not a case of discrimination nor the Ordinance violates the principles of natural justice as the order is initiated after service of notice and wide publication: Learned counsel further pointed out that adequate, alternate and efficacious remedy was available to the petitioner in shape of approaching the committee constituted for the purpose of determination- of differential value and since no such remedy is availed, extra ordinary constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked in favour of petitioner.
4. Learned counsel for petitioner did not deny execution of indemnity bond nor affirmed having approached the committee so constituted for determination of differential value, rather insisted that he cannot be penalized for no fault on his part having acquired vested right in the property after completing all the required formalities under the existing rules.
5. Be that as it may, the said Ordinance No.III of 2001 was promulgated to bring at par all the allotments or exchanges of urban State land at the market value to save the government exchequer from colossal losses incurred at the hands of political and other allied forces. Since no remedy provided under the Ordinance has been availed by the petitioner and in the face of contents of the indemnity bond executed by the petitioner, we do not find merits in this petition, thus, it stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
ZC/S-105/Sindh Petition dismissed.