LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs D.G — 2023 MLD 11 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS D.G. KHAN CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED Ss. 14-a & 13(6)(c)---Intra Court appeal---Control of master plan---Transfer of land in favour of Lahore Development authority ('authority')---Scope---Respondent's predecessor entered into an agreement with the predecessor of appellant-authority for purchase of plot---Predecessor of respondent agreed to surrender interest to the extent of 1/3 of the entire holding in appellant-authority's favour as proportionate contribution for roads and open spaces or alternatively it was required to pay compensation at the assessed rate of Land acquisition Collector---Invoice for the payment of certain amounts was issued and the total demand raised was duly paid by the predecessor of respondent---Respondent purchased the property from its predecessor and applied to the appellant-authority for an NOC (No Objection Certificate) for placement of its' name in the record---appellant-authority did not accede to the request of respondent and raised a demand for ex-post facto approval for regularization of the plot---Respondent filed a writ petition against the demand, which was allowed---Validity---appellant-authority had not raised any demand against the predecessor of respondent for a period of eleven years---appellant-authority had no jurisdiction to rescind or cancel the agreement to the detriment of respondent or its predecessor---Present case was a case of past and closed transaction which could not be reopened at the whim and discretion of the appellant---appellant-authority never challenged the original transaction as being unlawful or ultra vires---Present case was a case of higher demand raised by the appellant-authority unilaterally---Commercial transactions could not be reopened or rescinded to the detriment of one of the parties simply because the other party was a government department, which had a dominant position---Respondent was only required to make payment in respect of land which was excess land found to be in its possession as a result of demarcation carried out by the appellant---Impugned order was upheld and the appeals were dismissed.

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs D.G — 2023 MLD 11 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 MLD