Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No: 62 of 1985, decided on 26th May, 1988.

S. 44 Allotment of plot to respondent from special quota of President Competency to challenge validity of such allotment No rules governing allotment of plots from special quota of President were produced or shown President was thus left with sole discretion to allot from his special quota any plot to any person, irrespective of such person"s entitlement to allotment of plot under the law applicable thereto In absence of guidelines for such allotment, powers of President in that respect were unrestricted and unlimited Petitioner could not be deemed to be a person aggrieved by merely having applied for allotment of that plot Petitioner"s conduct for applying for allotment of other plots subsequently, amounted to waiving of her right to allotment of said plot Disputed plot prior to allotment to respondent, had not been advertised for allotment President before allotment of plot from his special quota was neither bound under law, nor" on principles of natural justice to hear petitioner Case was not made out for exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction.

Noor ul Amin for Petitioner.

Ch. Muhammad Taj for Respondent No.1.

M. Nisar Mirza, Add]. A. G. for Respondent No.2.

M.S. Tariq and Ch. Sarfraz for the Remaining Respondents.

Through this writ petition, the order of the President Chief Executive of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government dated 18 1 1983, whereby Plot No. 7 in Sector E 3, Part II, in Mirpur Town was allotted in the name of Haji Muhammad Malik, respondent No. 3, has been called in question.

2. The case of the petitioner is that she had applied for the allotment of Plot No. 7 in Sector E 3, Part II and had also deposited Rs.3,180 towards its cost and that she is also in possession of it. It is the further case of the petitioner that the President/Chief Executive of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government allotted the aforesaid plot to respondent No.3 from his special quota on 18 1 1983 without hearing the petitioner and in contravention of the rules pertaining to the allotment of plots in New Mirpur Town. The petitioner has also alleged that the aforesaid respondent already had the allotment of a plot in his name and could not be allotted the plot in question in preference to the petitioner who is a Mangla Dam affected person. The petitioner has also alleged that the respondent No:3 had sold this plot to respondent No.4 who, in turn, had sold it to Alif, deceased respondent, whose legal representatives are respondents Nos.6 to 11.

3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 being already an allottee of a plot, had no entitlement to another plot in Mirpur Town and, as such, the allotment impugned in this writ petition has been made in violation of the relevant rules. He has further contended that the petitioner had applied for allotment of the plot in dispute and was in its possession when the same was allotted to respondent and, as such, it was necessary to provide her an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order but this was not done and, as such, the impugned order is unlawful.

4. The Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has contended that the allotment impugned in the writ petition has been made by the President/Chief Executive from his own special quota of plots reserved for the purpose under the relevant law and, as such, the petitioner is not a person aggrieved by the impugned order. It is further contended by him that there are no rules or regulations governing the allotment of plots by the President/Chief Executive from his special quota and the discretion of allotment of plot to anybody from the said quota squarely rests with the President/Chief Executive. It is further contended by him that although the petitioner had applied for allotment of the plot in question in the year 1972 but later on she had waived her right to its allotment as she had made many other applications thereafter for allotment of plots in other sectors of Mirpur Town and that the writ petition suffers from laches as it has been filed after the lapse of more than 21 years from the date of the passing of the impugned order.

5. I have given my due consideration to the above contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It is undisputed that the plot in question was allotted by the President/Chief Executive to the respondent No.3 from his own special quota of plots reserved for this purpose under the relevant law. The petitioner, in pare 6 of her writ petition, has herself alleged that the President/Chief Executive had allotted the plot to the respondent No.3 from his special quota. The counsel fort the petitioner has not been able to show any rules governing the allotment of plots from the aforesaid quota nor I have myself been able to lay my hands on any such rules. It is thus left to the sole discretion of the President/Chief Executive to allot from his special. quota any plot to any person irrespective of his entitlement to allotment of plot under the law applicable to allotments of plot by the M. D . A . 1 under the rules. There is no guideline laid down for such an allotment.: The powers of the President/Chief Executive in this respect are I restricted and unlimited and, as such, allotment of the plot in question, in the name of respondent No.3 cannot be held to be violative of any) law or rules governing the allotment of plots in Mirpur Town with the result that, the impugned allotment has not adversely affected any right of the petitioner vested in her under law. In this view ofi the matter, she cannot make grievance of the impugned allotment as she is not a person aggrieved by it. The mere fact that the petitioner had applied, for the allotment of this plot, to the Mirpur Developments Authority, as back as in 1973 does not make the impugned order, illegal or without lawful authority. The petitioner after applying for; the allotment of the said plot appears to have abandoned her intention to get the allotment of it as she had made subsequent applications to the Mirpur Development Authority for allotment of plots in other" sectors. Her above conduct amounts to waiving of her right to the" allotment of the plot in question even if she had any. There is nothing on the record to show that the disputed plot was even advertised by the Mirpur Development Authority for allotment and the petitioner had applied for its allotment" in response to such an advertisement. Similarly, it was not incumbent under law as well as the principle of natural justice for the President/Chief Executive to hear the petitioner before making the allotment of the plot in question to respondent No.3.

6. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merits in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.

A . A . /340/H . A . 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.