Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. K‑128 of 1969, decided on 15th January 1970.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, dated the 21st August 1969, in Petition No. 426 of 1969).

r. 8(2)(c)‑Lease‑Controlling Authority (Divisional Commissioner) while considering case for sanction of lease granted by Municipal Committee‑Fully competent to consider and to change terms of lease.

Art. 98‑Writ petition Laches‑Petitioner not able to satisfy Court that view of High Court adjudging petition as belated not based on proper appreciation of facts of case‑Writ petition, held, suffered from inordinate delay and rightly dismissed.

S. H. Rizvi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ahmad Ullah Faruqi, Advocate‑ on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 15th January 1970.

‑This petition for special leave to appeal is directed against the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, in Writ Petition No. 426 of 1969, decided on the 21st August 1969. By this order the petition filed, was dismissed in limine. The dispute in the present case is about a plot of land measuring 4,898 sq. ft. out of City Survey No. 581‑C, situated behind Shalimar Cinema, Sukkur, which was leased out to the petitioner‑Mills by the Sukkur Municipality, respondent No. 1, on 99 years' lease at Rs. 3 per sq. ft. The petitioner was asked to deposit one‑fourth of the cost which was deposited on the 2nd January 1965. It appears that the lease being of more than three years, the matter was to be finally decided by the Commissioner, Khairpur Division, the Controlling Authority under, rule 8(2)(c) of the West Pakistan Municipal Committee (Property) Rules, 1962. The learned Officer sanctioned the lease at tile rate of Rs. 6.50 per sq. ft. by order dated the 22nd December 1965. The petitioner being aggrieved by this order challenged it before the Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, in revisional jurisdiction which was dismissed on the 20th January 1967, on the ground that it was not competent. Later on, tire petitioner filed an appeal on the 22nd October 1968 to the Government and on the 18th April, 1969, they were informed that no appeal lay against the order of the Controlling Authority tinder the Rules. The petitioner challenged this order in the above writ petition which, as already stated, was dismissed summarily on the 21st August 1969.

In support of the petition, Mr. S. H. Rizvi, learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that the Controlling Authority was only competent to sanction or not to sanction the lease. He was not competent to raise the price or to change the terms of the lease of the property in dispute. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay and laches. The learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to satisfy us that the view of the High Court that it was a belated application is not based on proper appreciation of the facts of the case. There is no explanation by the petitioner why they remained idle from January 1967 till October 1968. We are satisfied that the writ petition filed by the petitioner Mills suffered from inordinate delay and laches and the High Court was perfectly justified in dismissing it on that ground.

On merits, the petitioner has no case The Controlling Authority was fully competent to consider the terms on which the base should have been granted to the petitioner. There is no bar under the relevant rules on the power of the Controlling Authority to change the terms of the lease that came before it for sanction. Moreover, the petitioner‑Mills have not acquired vested right in the property dispute, It was open to the respondent to sanction the lease for favour of the petitioner such terms as they considered fit The grievance of the petition is not well founded. There is no force in the petition which is dismissed.

Leave refused.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.