' MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, J.---A common question of law and fact is involved in Writ. Petition No, 6128 of 2006 and Writ Petition No, 6476 of 2006 I propose to dispose of these two by this common order.
2. Succinctly stated, Multan Development Authority (M.D.A.) through advertisement in the press invited applications for allotment of plots in Fatima Jinnah Town through balloting. The petitioners (in both the petitions) and their husbands submitted separate forms for allotment of residential plots in the said Town. In the ballot held on 29th May, 2006 the petitioners and their husbands were declared successful and were allotted plots. Their husbands after getting the allotment in their names disposed of the plots by way of sale. The petitioner (in Writ Petition No 16128 of 2006) was allotted plot No,78-C. Similarly Mst. Nadia Hameed Khan, petitioner (in Writ Petition No,6476 of 2006) was allotted plot No,66-F. They have received cancellation notice on the ground that as per Clause 7 of the allotment letter "spouses can retain only one plot of their choice and other plot has to be surrendered."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that there was no such condition in the advertisement issued in the press. No such embargo can be imposed upon the petitioners subsequently. The contract was complete as soon as the petitioners were declared successful in the draw of plots. The respondent had accepted Rs.1,00,000 even after the balloting, they are estopped by their conduct from cancelling the plot. It is further urged that as per parawise comments the respondent had sought the relaxation from the Government of Punjab under section 4(G) of the Disposal of Lands by Development Authorities (Regulation) Act, 1998 seeking permission for disposal of residential plots in M.D.A. Fatima Jinnah Town (a housing scheme). In the said permission no such condition was imposed. The respondent M.D.A. On its own cannot put such restriction.
' Conversely the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the petitioners were offered allotment of plot vide letter, dated 4th July, 2006 and 3rd June, 2006 subject to the aforementioned condition which was accepted by the petitioners and thereafter they submitted an affidavit that they will be bound by the terms and conditions of the allotment. In this view of the matter husband and wife both are not entitled to the allotment of the plot. He further submitted that the petitioners cannot be allowed plots in violation of Rule, 6 of the Disposal of Lands by Development Authorities (Regulation) Rules, 2002.
4. I have perused the available record, gone through the relevant provisions of law and considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties. The Housing Scheme Known as Fatima Jinnah Town was got approved by M.D.A. From the Government of Punjab under section 4(g) (relaxation power) of The Disposal of Lands by Development Authorities (Regulation) Act, 1998. The Government of Punjab framed rules under the said Act of 1998 known as Disposal of Land by Development Authorities (Regulation) Rules, 2002. Rule 6 of the said Rules is reproduced as under:- - "(6) Ineligibility:---No person shall be eligible for allotment who:--
(a) owns a plot or a house in his name in any area of the Punjab, or
(b) has been allotted a plot or a house in any planned or approved housing scheme in the Punjab and has transferred it to the wife, or as the case may be, husband, or dependent children but has sold it out; or
(c) owns a plot or a house in the name of wife or, as the case may be, husband or dependent children in any area of the Punjab, or
(d) has been convicted of corruption charges, or an enquiry for corruption is pending, or
(e) has been dismissed from Government Service, or
(t) has been convicted for anti-state, anti-social activities and heinous crimes, or
(g) is a minor except destitute.
' It is thus clear that the petitioners are not eligible for allotment of any plot under Clause(c).
' Under the Law of Contract no contract between the parties came into being. The advertisement in the press is merely an invitation to treat. An offer was made to the petitioners for allotment of the plots subject to the condition that if both husband and wife are successful in the draw of plots only one spouse will be entitled to retain the plot of his or her choice. Condition No,7 of the offer letter reads as under:-- "SURRENDER OF PLOT ' Important: if you had submitted more than one application (in one name) for the allotment of plot in this scheme and have been declared successful in balloting for more than one plots, you can retain only one plot of your choice of any size and in this regard you will have to give your choice in writing. Rest of the plots will have to be surrendered to MDA. Similarly, if husband and wife both had applied for a plot in this scheme and the both have been declared successful in the balloting then either of thespouses can retain only one plot of own choice. Rest of the plots will have to be surrendered to MDA and you will have to furnish an affidavit to this effect. If wrong information is provided, the allotment will be cancelled from your name and the amount deposited will be forfeited."
' The object of the scheme appears to be to accommodate as many families as possible and not to dole out the plots to the members of the same family if they happen to be lucky in the balloting.
The husband and wife being members of the same family are not entitled to more than one plot in their individual capacity. The purpose of the Scheme seems to be reasonable and fair. The petitioners accepted the embargo imposed on them by Clause 7 and filed an affidavit to this effect. They cannot be allowed to have volte face and say that they are not bound by the condition.
Their husbands have already disposed of the plots allotted to them. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that no such condition exists in terms approved by the Government of Punjab is devoid of any force. The summary sent to the Chief Minister reveals that the M.D.A. Had sought permission to dispose of the residential plots on the precedent of Multan Model Town Phase-III Housing Scheme. The said proposal was approved by the Chief Minister. The existence of such condition in the Multan Model Town Phase-III Housing Scheme is 'not denied by the learned counsel. At any rate if the submission of the forms is considered as an offer, the acceptance is subject to a condition. The minds of the parties were not ad idem. No contractual relationship B between the parties came into existence. Even otherwise the enforcement of the contract cannot be ordered through a constitutional petition. I do not find any substance in these petitions, therefore, dismiss the same.