IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 
(Appellate Jurisdiction) 
 
 
PRESENT:  
MR. JUSTICE IJAZ UL AHSAN 
MR. JUSTICE AMIN-UD-DIN KHAN  
MR. JUSTICE SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI 
 
 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 152-L OF 2010 
(Against the judgment of Lahore High 
Court, Lahore dated 24.06.2002 passed in 
RFA No. 180/1994) 
 
Lahore 
Development 
Authority 
and 
another 
… Appellant 
 
 
 
Versus 
 
Muhammad Tariq Niaz 
… Respondent  
 
 
 
For the appellant. 
: 
Ch. Waseem Arif Bhaddar, ASC  
Mr. M. Sabir Deputy Director 
 
For Respondents  
: 
Mr. Ahmad Waheed Khan, ASC 
 
 
 
Date of Hearing 
: 
27.08.2020 
 
 
 
 
 
 
JUDGMENT 
  
 
SAYYED MAZAHAR ALI AKBAR NAQVI;- Civil appeal, by 
leave of the Court under Article 185(3) of Constitution of Islamic Republic 
of Pakistan, 1973, is directed against the impugned judgment of Lahore 
High Court, Lahore dated 24.06.2002 passed in RFA No.180/1994. 
2. 
 
The facts leading to file the instant civil appeal are that the 
respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration/specific performance with 
consequential relief qua an agreement on the basis of which an offer was 
made by the appellant to respondent/plaintiff. The said offer was in 
response to an open public action proceedings published in a newspaper 
dated 06.10.1980 regarding a plot bearing No.193/B, Upper Mall Lahore. 
The respondent/plaintiff was one of the participants in the open auction 
proceedings while depositing Rs.5000/- in lieu of terms and conditions. 
Civil Appeal No.152-L of 2010. 
-: 2 :-
The respondent/plaintiff was declared as highest bidder of the auction 
proceedings which was declared Rs.3,56,000/- per Kanal. As the 
respondent was highest bidder by all standards, therefore, the appellant 
formally invited the respondent to make 1/3 of the total auction price as 
per legal requirement at the spot. Consequently, Rs.1,50,000/- was 
deposited and he was further directed to deposited an amount of 
Rs.1,18,500/- in view of the acceptance of the bid. All such requirements 
were fulfilled accordingly and as such receipt of the same was duly issued. 
The respondent visited the office of the appellant time and again while 
seeking demand notice to make the rest of the amount payable against 
total auction amount. It is a matter of surprise that letter bearing No.707 
dated 18.10.1980 was sent by the appellant/defendant wherein the 
respondent/plaintiff was intimated to contact the appellant/defendant. 
Subsequently, the respondent/plaintiff was informed on 11.12.1980 that a 
third party (not participated in auction proceedings) had offered them 
higher price of Rs.3,85,000/- per Kanal and as such showed their 
unwillingness to hand over the plot, the subject matter of auction 
proceedings to the respondent/plaintiff. Although the subsequent 
development was squarely unjustified, however, the respondent/plaintiff 
showed his inclination to pay the enhanced priced to meet the offer and as 
such intimated the appellant through a letter which was incorporated in 
diary of the appellant on 11.12.1980. The appellant in lieu of the offer 
made to the respondent/plaintiff directed him verbally to deposit the 
remaining amount within seven days, but in the meantime another public 
notice for open auction was published in "Daily Pakistan Times" dated 
16.11.1980 wherein the same plot bearing No. 193/B Upper Mall Lahore 
was made the subject matter which was already auctioned in favour of the 
respondent/plaintiff. 
Civil Appeal No.152-L of 2010. 
-: 3 :-
3. 
 
Being aggrieved by the conduct of the appellant, the 
respondent/plaintiff filed a declaratory suit and specific performance with 
consequential relief while calling in question the re-auction of the plot 
already auctioned in favour of respondent/plaintiff. The learned trial court 
after recording of evidence of both the parties decreed the suit of the 
respondent/plaintiff vide judgment and decree dated 27.03.1994. The 
appellant challenged the judgment and decree of learned trial court 
through filing Regular First Appeal before Lahore High Court, Lahore 
which was ultimately dismissed vide judgment dated 24.06.2002. 
4. 
 
At the very outset, learned counsel for the appellant 
contends that the learned courts below have grossly misinterpreted, 
misconstrued the evidence available on the record which was not 
evaluated in its true prospective. It is further contended that the oral as 
well as documentary evidence adduced by the appellant was altogether 
ignored and the same was not given due appreciation. Contends that the 
main aspect of the auction proceedings was not sustainable as no 
approval of the Director General was ever sanctioned in favour of the 
auction proceedings in the capacity as "competent authority" and as such 
whole super structure raised has no legal sanctity. Contends that the 
declaration as prayed was not sustainable as such no right or interest was 
ever accrued to the respondent/plaintiff in the given scenario. Contends 
that the communication through Ex.D-8 qua confirmation of the auction 
proceedings has no legal weightage as the negotiations were carried out 
with LDA staff having no authorization to enter into negotiations and as 
such hardly contribute towards completion of contract. Lastly, it is argued 
that mere assumption that the contract was complete cannot be 
substituted in absence of due sanction by the competent authority which is 
squarely missing in the given circumstances. Learned counsel prayed that 
Civil Appeal No.152-L of 2010. 
-: 4 :-
as no right or interest has accrued in favour of the respondent/plaintiff, 
hence, no liability can be ascribed to the appellant, therefore, the 
reasoning assigned by the learned courts below are artificial, hence, nullity 
in the eye of law. 
5. 
 
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of 
respondent argued that the respondent was bona-fide participant/bidder of 
the auction proceedings qua the plot in question. Contends that all pre-
requisite to enter into open auction were fulfilled as per terms and 
conditions and as such the depositing of different installment being highest 
bidder further supplement the bona-fide of the respondent/plaintiff. 
Contends that the conduct of the appellant while enhancing the auction 
price at belated stage was uncalled for although the respondent/plaintiff 
accepted the same with open heart. Contends that the public functionary 
cannot demonstrate beyond the limits prescribed by the law and as such 
an equitable right of the respondent was made complicated in un-
precedented manner, hence, such conduct cannot be assented by the 
court of law.   
6. 
 
We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the 
parties and perused the record with their able assistance. 
7. 
 
There is no denial to this fact that the respondent/plaintiff 
participated in the open auction qua the plot bearing No. 193/B Upper Mall 
Lahore. During the bidding proceedings respondent/plaintiff was declared 
the highest bidder. The said claim of the respondent/plaintiff was even 
accepted by the appellant while submitting written statement before the 
learned trial court. It was further admitted that the respondent deposited 
Rs.1,50,000/- at the time of bid and later on he deposited Rs.1,18,500/- as 
1/3rd of the bid. Admittedly the appellant/defendant never denied the 
Civil Appeal No.152-L of 2010. 
-: 5 :-
various visits of respondent/plaintiff in the office of LDA in order to 
complete the bidding process while depositing the rest of the amount to 
discharge its liability qua payment of amount of auction. The introduction 
of third party by the appellant (not participated in the open auction 
proceedings) with offer of higher price was also intimated to the 
respondent/plaintiff 
which 
was 
ultimately 
accepted 
by 
the 
respondent/plaintiff and as such the letter was written which was 
incorporated in the daily register, therefore, despite of the acceptance of 
higher price another public notice was published in daily newspaper. 
Faquir Muhammad, Assistant Director LDA while appearing as DW.1 
admitted in cross examination that the respondent was the highest bidder 
and LDA issued letter Ex.P.2 to respondent for negotiation. DW.1 also 
admitted that the respondent paid an amount of Rs.2,73,500/- at the spot 
as 1/3rd amount of the bid. The cross examination of DW.1 further reveals 
that one Saeed Ahmad filed an application to the LDA that the disputed 
plot be given to him at the rate of Rs.3,85,000/- per Kanal and the 
respondent was called through letter Ex.P3 to accept that amount in order 
to hand over the disputed plot. DW.1 further admitted that in the record of 
LDA, the application of respondent is available that he is ready to admit 
the condition under protest.  The appellant did not deny that the offer was 
made subsequently to the respondent/plaintiff; therefore, the appellant 
could not back out from his admission. The written statement filed by the 
appellant as well as statement of DW.1 Faquir Muhammad and Ex.P.4 
and Ex.P5 shows that the acceptance of the offer of the appellant to pay 
the price at the rate of Rs.3,85,000/- was made first orally on 03.11.1980 
and thereafter through Ex.P4 dated 28.11.1980 and then through Ex.P.5 
dated 15.12.1980 despite the fact that as per Ex.D.2 the bid of the 
respondent/plaintiff was cancelled on 28.11.1980. The learned counsel for 
Civil Appeal No.152-L of 2010. 
-: 6 :-
the appellant was specifically confronted that the Director General ever 
proceeded to cancel the bid being unlawful as it was carried out without 
the sanction of competent authority. Further that the competent authority 
ever proceeded against those employees who negotiated with the 
respondent/plaintiff on behalf of the competent authority without seeking 
prior sanction. The learned counsel failed to satisfy this Court. Otherwise 
the fact that the price of bid was enhanced at belated stage on the pretext 
that one person who was not participant of the open auction had made an 
offer of higher price which cannot be made basis for re-auction of the plot 
and this practice seems to be un-precedented being without any lawful 
authority.  On the contrary it is noticed by us that the respondent/plaintiff 
has performed his part towards fulfillment of contract by first depositing an 
amount of Rs.5000/- as per terms and conditions, as he was declared 
highest bidder. Therefore he deposited an amount of Rs.2,73,500/- at the 
spot as 1/3rd amount of the bid, all these facts are admitted by Assistant 
Director of LDA while deposing before the court, hence, in the given 
circumstances narrated above, it is made abundantly clear that the 
appellant/defendant was grossly unjustified to issue another proclamation 
for public auction relating to plot No. 193/B, Upper Mall Lahore, once its 
valid acceptance was made by the respondent/plaintiff. It is worth 
mentioning that the conduct of the appellant/defendant was not above-
board, rather they acted in a manner which was squarely against the 
dictates of justice. This practice if allowed to continue it might frustrate 
public confidence qua public functionaries which might be detrimental to 
uphold the public order which is paramount to keep the society in peaceful 
atmosphere; therefore, the public functionaries are expected to perform 
their duties well within the prescribed limits of the law of the land. 
Civil Appeal No.152-L of 2010. 
-: 7 :-
8. 
 
For reasons recorded above, we do not find any merit in this 
appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Judge 
 
Judge 
 
 
Judge 
Lahore  
27.08.2020 
Approved for reporting. 
*Athar* 
