CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Rana MUNAWAR KHAN Ss — 2021 SCMR 483 SUPREME-COURT

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS Rana MUNAWAR KHAN Ss. 42 & 54---Suit for declaration and permanent injunction---Allotment letter, interpretation of---Allotment of plot on installments---Installments delayed by purchaser due to non-removal of high-tension wires from the plot by Capital Development Authority (CDA)---Installments were re-scheduled on orders of the Federal Ombudsperson---Delayed payment charges were imposed on purchaser by CDA once all installments were paid---Plea of purchaser/respondent that he did not pay the installments within time as according to clause 6 of the lease agreement the possession of the plot free from all encumbrances and ready for construction was to be delivered to him within a period of one month i.e. on or before 14-01-1988 but the same was delivered on 27-02-1988 without removing high tension wires and electric poles, which were passing through all the plots of that area---Validity---Clause 6 of the lease agreement/allotment letter did not state that the CDA was bound to deliver the possession after removing of high tension wires etc.---However, it appears from the noting portion of the CDA that Town Planner-1 vide a memo had informed that an overhead electric line was encroaching the plots in the area but the same was removed and the possession was handed over to the respondent without any further encroachment---Such claim found force from the possession letter, wherein the respondent had himself admitted that there was no encroachment on his plot---Respondent has himself signed the possession letter and certified that he had seen his plot and all its corners, there was no encroachment on his plot, and no service line was passing within his plot---Although possession was delivered to him late but the delay was only of 40 to 45 days---Respondent had to pay the first installment by 01-03-1988 but despite the fact that possession was handed over to him on 27-02-1988, he did not pay the same---Appellant/CDA issued him a letter dated 08-04-1989 to make the payment but instead of complying, he filed a suit for permanent injunction, which prima facie shows that he wanted to avoid payment accrued towards him---Purpose of the respondent was to evade payment while buying time---Proceedings before the civil court continued for a period of five years and when the respondent saw that he would not be able to get a favourable order, he withdrew the suit and approached the Federal Ombudsman---Respondent was bound to pay the delayed payment charges---Appeal was allowed.

CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs Rana MUNAWAR KHAN Ss — 2021 SCMR 483 SUPREME-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2021 SCMR