MUHAMMAD IKHLAQ MEMON versus CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY
Plots prediction Auction successful payment by a bidder The effect of the absence of plots for the allotment payout the balance after the completion of the approval letters Capital Development Authority (CDA) takes possession of the plots by the applicant. Was not handed over because the third parties were in possession and had litigation in which the court granted the injunction, and no one else. The plots available for the appellant filed a constitutional petition before the High Court's Single Judge, which dealt with the Appellate Intellect Court's appeal against the High Court's single judge's decision to return the auction money to the Capital Development Authority. In its constitutional petition, the appellant did not attribute any misconduct to the Capital Development Authority and acknowledges that the plots were in the possession of a third party who received the establishment orders, the Capital Development Authority appellant. The required acceptance and allotment letter was not issued, nor did the appellant himself offer the balance price (75%) or offer. On the contrary, the appellant wrote to the Capital Development Authority to return 25% of the deposit, in which case the single judge's order was fair and reasonable and when his request for a refund was granted. Then the appellant should not have objected to it. By allowing the appellant to retain his rights in respect of the plots through the court, paying only 25% of the value, he will get an unfair advantage / benefit at the expense of the public as the value of this money is historically outdated. It's done In addition to the cost of land
