Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 496 of 1978, decided on 28th May, 1980.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 19‑6‑1978 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2353 of 1975).

--S 54 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Conten tion as to allotment having been made by Chairman of Society under delegated authority neither raised in Supreme Court nor taken in grounds of writ petition nor urged before High Court‑Not permitted to be raised‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973).

‑‑ S. 54‑Registrar, held, could decide matter himself instead of remanding case to arbitrator.‑[Arbitrator].

‑‑ S. 54‑Petitioner, held, possessed no inviolable right to allotment of plot allotted to another‑Petitioner's case, however, in view of its particular features, merited consideration and authorities concerned advised to pay attention to same in light of observations made by High Court.

C. M. Latif Rawn, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by

Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.5

Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 4.

Date of hearing: 28th May, 1980.

‑Leave to appeal has been sought from judgment dated 19‑6‑1978 whereby a writ petition arising out of a dispute with regard to the allotment of a plot in a Co‑operative House Building Society, was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, while giving the summary of facts, stated that the petitioner was allotted a plot by respondent No. 4 in 1958. The allotment was cancelled subsequently on the ground of non‑construction in accordance with the conditions of allotment. The petitioner then purchased superstructure in the form of a living room and certain units like kitchen, bath‑room, etc. built upon another plot, took possession thereof

and started residing therein in 1964. This plot, bearing No. 213‑A, is in dispute. It was allotted to respondent No. 5. The petitioner marls an application in. 1969 protesting against the said allotment and reminding the authority concerned that on earlier cancellation of the other plot he was promised that whenever available a new plot will be allotted to him; hut this time also no attention was paid to his request for allotment. The Petitioner, having failed in his efforts to secure allotment of the plot, filed a writ petition in the High Court, and the same having been dismissed, he has sought leave to appeal.

Learned counsel has contended: that even though the Managing Committee of the Society had power to delegate its function of making allotments of plots, in this case the allotment to respondent No. 5 was made by the Chairman under the so‑called delegation by the general body (Ijlas‑i‑Aam of the Society)‑he has relied on the contents of document R/8 filed from the respondent's side; that the petitioner having made proper application in the matter, it was incumbent upon the Registrar to have made a reference to arbitration under section 54 of the Co‑operative Societies Act; and that even if the petitioner had entered upon the plot in dispute without the permission of the Society, the Managing Committee had power to regularize the possession through allotment/compromise, and since this power has not been exercised, the orders impugned before the High Court were without lawful authority.

The first contention raised in this Court was neither taken in the grounds of writ petition, nor was it urged before the High Court. We do not see any compelling reason to permit the same to be raised here.

The second point urged by the learned counsel has been properly deal with by the learned Single Judge in the High Court, that instead of sending the case to an arbitrator, the Registrar could decide the matter himself.

The last argument of the learned counsel is without force. It cannot) be said that the petitioner had an inviolable right to the allotment of the plot in question, particularly when the same had been allotted to another person. If the Committee refused to allot it to the petitioner, its action could not be considered as without lawful. authority.

After hearing the learned counsel, in the circumstances, we do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. However, as the facts narrated in the judgment of the High Court show, the petitioner's case for allotment of a plot ‑(not necessarily the plot in dispute)‑did merit consideration by the concerned authorities. We endorse the observation in this behalf made by the learned Judge in para. 15 of the impugned judgment. There is no reason to apprehend that the concerned authorities would not pay attention to the said remarks by the learned Single Judge.

With these observations

this petition is dismissed.

Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.