' RANA BHAGWANDAS, J.--- This petition is directed against Sindh High Court judgment, dated 2-6- 2006 dismissing petitioner's writ petition seeking direction to respondents Nos.2 and 3 to allot the plot of land to him within the city of Karachi as ordered by the Chief Minister, Sindh, on the application of the petitioner way back on 10-2-1986. The ground which weighed with the High Court appears to be that Chief Minister, Sindh was not legally authorized and competent to allot any plot of land in urban areas without formulation of any scheme under the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. At any rate he could not act at his whims as the procedure prescribed for regulating the transfer of land in City of Karachi was neither followed nor adhered to. While referring to an earlier judgment of Sindh High Court in Abdul Haq v. Government of Sindh PLD 2000 Kar. 224, the High Court observed that all public functionaries howsoever high they may be are bound to act within the param.Ters of law.
2. We have heard Mr. Akhlaq Ahmad Siddiqui, learned Advocateon-Record for the petitioner at some length and gone through the record as well as the impugned judgment of the High Court.
3. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Division Bench of the High Court when it says that public functionaries including the Chief Minister can deal with the public property only under a prescribed procedure within the parameters of law under a duly sanctioned scheme and not at their whims. Even if such order was passed by the Chief Minister in favour of the petitioner, authorities concerned would not be bound to follow such illegal and void order of a superior authority. It would rather be "in the exigencies of good order of adminis ration and their duty to point out to the high-ups that they were acting in excess of their lawful authority and in violation of law and the constitutional mandate. They may be apprised of the legal consequences flowing from such acts. The compliance of any illegal and arbitrary order is neither binding on the subordinate forums nor valid in the eyes of law. Reference in this behalf may be made to decision of this Court in Abdul Haq Indhar v. Province of Sindh 2000 SCM R 907 and (ii) Taj Muhammad v.
Town Committee 1994 CLC 2214.
4. In view of what has been stated above, we are of the view that the High Court neither committed any illegality nor acted in violation of settled principles of law while dismissing the petitioner's writ petition. Impugned judgment thus, does not call for interference.
5. Resultantly, this petition fails and is dismissed being without any merit.