MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM And Others vs FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a Lahore High Court judgment that dismissed an Intra-Court Appeal regarding the allotment of shops by the Faisalabad Development Authority. The petitioners, former shopkeepers in the Old Vegetable Market, had been relocated by the Authority under a development scheme. Upon the Authority's agreement to provide them with new shops, the petitioners accepted the allotment but subsequently contested the price fixed for these shops, alleging it was arbitrary and legally unjustified. The High Court dismissed their initial writ petition in limine, and the subsequent Intra-Court Appeal was also dismissed. The Supreme Court reviewed the record and submissions, noting that the petitioners had explicitly agreed to pay the price determined by the Authority. Finding no breach of law or violation of any vested right, the Supreme Court held that there was no justification for judicial interference in the price fixation process. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was dismissed, affirming the lower court's decision.
- Can a party challenge the price fixation of allotted shops after having previously agreed to pay the price determined by the development authority?
- Does the fixation of price for shops by a development authority constitute a breach of law or vested right when the allottee has consented to the authority's determination?
ORDER
1. JAVID IQBAL, J.---This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 16th March, 1985 whereby I.CA. Of the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were running shops in the Old Vegetable Market, Digkot Road, Faisalabad. The respondent Faisalabad Development Authority directed the petitioners to vacate the site as it formulated a scheme to develop the area. The petitioners represented to the authority that they be provided shops in the same area after its development. The respondent agreed. Thereafter, one shop each was allotted to the petitioners. The main grievance of the petitioners is that the price had been arbitrarily fixed and that therefore the fixation of the price was not justified by law.
3. This plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners has not been accepted at any stage. The respondent did not accept it and as a result the petitioners challenged the fixation of the price of the shops allotted to them in the High Court by way of writ petition which was dismissed in limine.
4. Thereafter, their I.CA. Had also been dismissed. Hence the present petition.
5. We have heard learned counsel and in the light of his submission seen the record. The petitioners had agreed to pay the price to be fixed by the respondent. There is no breach of any law or vested right in this case. It is therefore not a fit case for interference. As a result this petition is dismissed.