Abdul Hameed Dogar, J.--This appeal with leave to this Court is directed against order dated 19.1.2001 passed learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No. 7572 of 1998 filed by, respondent was allowed.
2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the filing of instant appeal are that Appellant No. 2 invited applications from journalists for allotment of residential plots of various sizes in Development Scheme No. II at Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad vide memorandum No. S.O.(D-11)HP&EP-2- 1/86 dated 23.12.1986. The respondent being a Correspondent of Pakistan Press International (PPI) applied for allotment of plot in the above scheme on 25.2.1990 and deposited 20% of the total price of the plot. The application of the respondent was processed and he was declared eligible for allotment of Plot No. 394 measuring 1 kanal. Later on the appellants denied to issue formal allotment letter. Feeling grieved respondent invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Lahore through Writ Petition No. 7572 of 1998 which was allowed vide impugned order.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 30.8.2001 to consider inter alia the following contentions:-- (i)Whether by moving an application for allotment of plot reserved against the quota of journalist in the scheme would entitle them to claim the allotment essentially; and (ii)Whether the provisions of the Disposal of Land Development Authorities (Regulation)
Ordinance, 1998 whereby no quota has been reserved for any journalists and advocates etc. would be applicable in the case of appellant.
4. We have heard Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned AAG Punjab for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Riaz Lone, learned ASC for the respondent at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Learned AAG Punjab vehemently contended that no vested right had accrued in favour of respondent for allotment of the plot in question though his application was accepted. She further contended that Government withdrew the policy on 25.10.1993 through The Disposal of Land Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance, 1998 and no quota has been reserved for any category of claimants including journalists and advocates etc. She further contended that respondent was not entitled for the allotment of plot out of the quota for journalist after the abolition of the same. According to her since no allotment letter was issued to respondent, therefore, no right accrued in his favour for the allotment of the plot. She also contended that Civil Petition No. 253- L of 1997 was dismissed by this Court on 5.6.1997 but no law was declared or enunciated on the subject, therefore, question of Allotment of the plots against reserved quota can be reconsidered/examined by this Court in view of the fact that scheme for allotment has been cancelled through Ordinance of 1998 except disabled persons ho other category of professional are entitled for the allotment of plot against reserved quota.
6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and contended that on 25.2.1990 respondent deposited a sum of Rs.13,600/- being the 20% of the total price of the plot reserved for journalist and after processing his application he was allotted Plot No. 394 measuring ,1 kanal on 8.2.1994. He further contended that after determination of eligibility by the allotment committee a right stood in favour of respondent and by introduction of new policy of allotment or any subsequent change in the policy could not take away that right.
According to him, this Court in the case of Secretary to Government of Punjab, Housing Physical and Environmental Planning Department, Lahore Vs. Muhammad Ismail Khan Bhatti (CP No. 1266-L of 2001) involving similar controversy observed as under:-- "Since the respondent was found to be eligible to the allotment of the plot and as a matter of facts had to be allotted a plot, the petitioner cannot go back upon his commitment and any change in the policy could not be applied retrospectively to the respondent."
7. Admittedly respondent is working as correspondent in the Pakistan Press International (PPI)
Samundari District Faisalabad who on 25.2.1990 applied for allotment of plot out of `journalist quota and deposited Rs. 13,200/- as 20% of the total price of plot measuring one kanal. His application was processed and on completion of formalities he was allotted Plot No. 394 measuring on kanal out quota reserved for journalists on 8.2.1994 as such a vested right accrued in his favour. This Court in the case of Mehr Muhammad Amin, Advocate referred supra upheld the order of the, learned High Court whereby respondent advocate was allotted plot out of quota reserved for lawyers. It was also held therein that subsequent change in policy could not take away the A vested right of allotment of plot in favour of respondent. The learned High Court while relying upon the earlier order passed by this Court in the case of Mehr Muhammad Amin (supra) directed appellants to allot plot to the respondent out of the quota reserved for journalists. In the instant case respondent applied for allotment of plot prior to the amendment in the policy as such vested right stood already accrued in his favour. Since respondent was found eligible for allotment of plot after completing formalities as such appellants cannot go back to their commitment on the pretext of change in the policy. Though argued at length yet learned AAG Punjab has failed to point out of any illegality or misreading in the impugned judgment warranting interfere by this Court. We also do not find any ground, to take a different view earlier taken by this Court in the above referred case. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of any substance stands dismissed with no order as to costs.