Mst. AREEJ SIDDIQUA KHAN vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman Ss — 2025 CLC 1516 ISLAMABAD

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

Mst. AREEJ SIDDIQUA KHAN VS CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman Ss. 42, 54 & 55---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 96---Suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction---Declaratory relief under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877---Scope---Vested right in auction proceedings---Scope---Non-adherence to mandatory requirements of deposit timelines and confirmation formalities of bid---Effect---Appellant being highest bidder in auction proceedings deposited only token money of two plots and delayed payment of remaining bid money, thus, respondent-Capital Development Authority (CDA) Board confirmed one plot and cancelled the other---Appellant sought declaratory relief against the cancellation of the second plot being the highest bidder---Validity---Appellant failed to deposit 25% of the bid amount within 24 hours, as per terms and conditions of brochure of plot, thus, bid was cancelled and token money was forfeited---CDA Board being competent authority rejected the bid of second plot---Matter was again taken up by the CDA Board and after considering the matter the previous decision of the Board was upheld---Appellant's default to deposit 25% bid amount was established through un-rebutted documentary evidence, thus, after rejection of bid due to default no vested right accrued in favor of the appellant as the highest bidder in respect of second plot---Mere participation in the bidding process and being declared the highest successful bidder does not confer any vested right until the competent authority accepts the bid---Appellant did not acquire any legal title to the property in question by submitting the highest bid and the fact that the auction in her favor was not confirmed did not grant her the right to file a suit for declaration---Suit for declaration under S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, is maintainable only with respect to pre-existing rights and no suit can be filed in relation to rights that may accrue in the future---Suit of the appellant for declaration was not maintainable as the appellant had not acquired any right in the second plot---Declaration under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act of 1877 could only be sought with respect to a right that already exists---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. AREEJ SIDDIQUA KHAN vs CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman Ss — 2025 CLC 1516 ISLAMABAD

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLC