Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4589 of 1981, heard on 28th November, 1984.

---Art. 9--Constitutional Jurisdiction--Petitioner, in possession of Government quarter without a valid order, asking for allotment thereof--Quarter allotted to respondent under rule of eligibility--No right vesting in petitioner to claim allotment of quarter--Entitlement of petitioner examined formerly in a writ petition which was dismissed--Matter, held, could not be reagitated in constitutional jurisdiction in circumstances. Riaz Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner. Muhammad Aslam Chattha and Khalil Ramdey, Addl. A.-G., Punjab for Respondents. Date of hearing: 28th November, 1984.

Dispute, relates to allotment of Quarter No. 535/D-II, Darakhshan Colony, Green Town, Lahore. Admittedly Government of Pakistan in order to rehabilitate the persons repatriated from East Pakistan (Bangla Desh) constructed certain quarters. Instructions, were, issued by the Cabinet Division, Government of Pakistan, Rawalpindi, to'govern the eligibility of Behari repatriates. Petitioner Mr. Tayyab Hussain, a Behari repatriated from East Pakistan, arrived in Pakistan on 20-10-1973. It IS stated that he has paid a sum of Rs. 2,000 towards expenses of allotment of a quarter. Despite assurance, the quarter has not so far been allotted to him. Meanwhile petitioner was accommodated in quarter No. 535/D-II, Darakhshan Colony. This quarter, was allotted to Mr. Shabbir Khan also a repatriate from Bangla Desh. Registered deed, conferring proprietary rights has also been executed in his favour, on 23-7-1979 Petitioner was asked to vacate his unauthorised possession of the quarter which was not supported by any valid order of allotment by the competent authority. Faced with threatened dispossession, Writ Petition No. 3068-81 was presented by him, to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. He did not succeed and the petition was dismissed on 21-9-1981. Relief Commissioner, Punjab, Assistant Commissioner, Saddar (District Rehabilitation Officer), Lahore and Shabbir Khan, the allottee of the quarter in question were impleaded as parties to earlier Writ Petition No. 3068/81. It is stated that petitioner reapproached, the competent authorities, seeking allotment of, the quarter in question as according to him self, person similarly placed, in life, had been allotted quarters by the competent authorities. No grounds existed for according discrimina tory treatment to the petitioner, more so, when he had already paid the price also. Finding no satisfactory response, he has again invoked Constitutional jurisdiction, through the present writ petition. Constitu tional petition was admitted to regular hearing on 17-2-1982. The petition has come up for final hearing in presence of the parties and their respective counsel. Learned counsel for the parties, have been heard. 2. It is contended on behalf of the writ petitioner that he was entitled to an allotment of a quarter on the basis of policy laying down the rule of eligibility by the Government. Accommodation cannot be denied to him on the ground of his being an unmarried person, when, instances exist that allotment to singles had been made by the authorities. Grievance was that without any justifiable ground, the respondents, are making a discrimination. Mr. Khalil Ramdey, learned Additional Advocate-General appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1. Mr. Muhammad Aslam Chattha, Advocate, appeared on behalf of respondent No. 2, Shabbir Khan. It is stated on behalf of Shabbir Khan, respondent No. 2 that the quarter is in unauthorised possession of the petitioner. This quarter has already been allotted to the said respondent and a registered deed has also been executed in his favour on 23-7-1979. Writ petitioner being a trespasser was not entitled to protect his possession, with the aid of this Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction. Learned Additional Advocate-General opposed writ petition on the ground that the matter of allotment lay within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Government and the writ petitioner has no legal vested right to claim allotment, which can be enforced through Constitutional jurisdiction. 3. Admittedly, the quarter belongs to the Government. It has been allotted to Shabbir Khan observing the rule of eligibility, by Government. Petitioner had no valid order of allotment to support his possession. In the absence of a valid allotment order, permitting the petitioner to stay in the quarter, his possession, was totally unauthorised. Learned counsel for the petitioner frankly admitted that there was no legal right vesting in the writ petitioner to claim allotment of the quarter from the Government, on the basis of instructions issued by the Government regulating the allotments of quarters to rehabilitate the oustees from Bangladesh. However, the emphasis was that petitioner like so many others, was entitled to an equal treatment and was not to be discriminated against. In the absence of any legal right inhering in the writ petitioner and a corresponding obligation on Government to respect right, the petitioner has no legal cause to invoke Constitutional jurisdiction merely on sympathetic and equitable considerations. Apart from this, Writ Petition No. 3068-81 had already been dismissed. In this, his entitlement, has been examined in detail by the High Court. No Justification existed, in presence of the dismissal order, dated 21-9-1981 passed in Writ Petition No.3068-81, to reagitate the competent authorities, for redress of his grievance who will when so approached attend to his grievance, in the light of law and instructions on the subject. As far as the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction is concerned, the petitioner, has not succeeded to make out any case for interference of the High Court. 4. For the foregoing reasons, I see no force in the writ petitionand dismiss the same with no order as to costs. M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.