PESHAWAR: The Peshawar High Court has rejected the petition of a private housing society’s builders against the orders of the regional ombudsperson for them to hand over plots to 12 women applicants or return with interest their money received for plots.

A single-member bench headed by Justice Syed Mohammad Attique Shah rejected 12 appeals jointly filed by three builders of the Canal View Housing Scheme Peshawar, including Said Arif, Salman Fida and Shehzad Ali Khan, against the May 20 orders of Rukhshanda Naz, the ombudsperson for protection against harassment of women at the workplace.

The ombudsperson had issued the orders over 12 complaints filed by women applicants claiming that around 350 persons, including themselves, had invested their lifelong savings in the scheme by booking or purchasing plots through a private marketing company. However, the builder, Citi Builders, had been delaying handing over plots to them.

She ordered builders to allot plots to the complainants as per their respective contracts or return all amount received from them for the purpose within 45 days along with 20 per cent interest per annum as compensation.

Upholds orders of ombudsperson in the case

The ombudsperson is empowered under the KP Enforcement of Women’s Property Rights Act to hear complaints of women deprived of ownership or possession of their property.

The appellants had filed replies with the ombudsperson to the complaints and sought dismissal of the complaints, insisting that they were not maintainable.

After a preliminary assessment of the complaints, the ombudsperson directed the deputy commissioner of Peshawar to submit an inquiry report in relation to the properties.

An additional deputy commissioner later produced the report, which revealed that the land over which the housing project had to be executed was in the name of different people and not that of the society.

The appellants contended before the high court that without recording pro and contra evidence, the complaints should not have been summarily accepted by the ombudsperson.

The bench overruled their contention, observing that despite the presence of proper contracts with regard to handing over developed plots to the complainants within a prescribed period, the appellants failed to honour the terms and conditions of those contracts rather they apparently breached the same.

The bench observed that the appellants had attracted the complainants and many other individuals with the “name, fame and reputation” of a private company, Star Marketing, to purchase plots, so the complainants deserved to get back all their amount with interest as they had still not received the plots.

It added that the records, especially the impugned final orders, revealed that the ombudsperson while taking stock of all available material, including the report of an inquiry by the additional deputy commissioner, rightly accepted the complaints while dismissing the applications of the appellants.

“Keeping in view the nature of the controversy not having arisen any question of law and facts for consideration albeit facts were fairly simple, this court understood that the available material. The record was more than sufficient to decide all these appeals in motion without issuing notice to the other side,” it declared.

Published in Dawn, July 26th, 2024