GULSTAN KHAN NASIR versus CHAIRMAN, DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY, LAHORE
Article 199 In the petition regarding the cancellation of the allotment of the plot, the applicant was regularly allotted in the open ballot and the applicant / allottee submitted the first installment of development charges. It was then stated that the allotment was on this basis. It was canceled that the applicant was ineligible for the allotment, which was clear and unambiguous, indicated that the allotment could be canceled, if the allotment was found to be ineligible which was allotment, he had paid the amount. , But when it was found that it did not meet the eligibility criteria, he was immediately informed There was nothing in the record to indicate that the allotment was canceled in the same question: that the applicant had deliberately and financially misinformed or tried to defraud the authorities. Otherwise, once the allotment was canceled, the authorities had nothing to stop the applicant from refusing to pay the money he had paid, but the author ITS made the money paid by the applicant. Refused to return Authorities had to act in a fair manner, not arbitrarily, and punishing a person without any law enforcement was subject to specific item penalties in the terms and conditions and the competent authorities were not paid by the applicant. Instruction to return the amount returned with markup at the rate of 10% per annum
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011
