' CH. EJAZ YOUSAF, J.--- This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 16-4- 2007 passed by a learned Single Bench of the Peshawar High Court, Peshawar, whereby civil revision filed by the petitioner against the judgment and decree, dated 12-12-2006 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Peshawar, was dismissed.
2. Briefly stating the facts of the case as gathered from the record are that a plot measuring 3.50 acres in Industrial Estate Jamrud Road, Peshawar, was provisionally allotted to the petitioner- company in the year 1983 but an area of 2.5 acres was cancellqd on 21-2-1999 on the ground that the petitioner-company had failed to raise construction and to establish factory over the said plot in violation of the allotment order. Cancellation was assailed by way of civil suit which was decreed on 5-12-1992 in favour of the petitioner by way of compromise, whereby the petitioner had undertaken to start construction of the industry within a period of one year. Record reveals that since construction was not raised uptill 1996, therefore, a fresh notice, dated 15-4-1996 was issued on the ground that the petitioner had failed to deposit the outstanding dues. A part of the said amount was though deposited, yet construction was again not raised and thus, allotment was ultimately cancelled on 27-8-1996. Cancellation was challenged in a suit instituted on 11-10-1999 but the same was dismissed against which appeal was filed which too did not bear fruit. Ultimately the Peshawar High Court was approached through civil revision which too was dismissed, hence this petition.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has strenuously urged that though in the allotment letter, dated 21-11-1983, the petitioner was required to raise construction on the said plot within the stipulated period yet since in the lease deed, dated 18-3-1986, there was no such clog, therefore, all the Courts below have gravely erred in holding that action taken by the respondent was justified in the circumstances. It is further his case that subsequent to cancellation order, dated 21-2-1999 the petitioner had undertaken to raise construction subject to the condition that loan is sanctioned in his favour by any financial institution and since needful was not done therefore, construction could not be raised.
4. Learned counsel for the respondents while vehemently controverting the contentions raised by learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since clause 4 of the allotment order whereby the petitioner was required to raise construction on the plot in question within the stipulated period was flagrantly violated, therefore, department was within its right to cancel the allotment. He pointed out that possession of the plot was never handed over to the petitioner and after cancellation it was bifurcated into three and now it has been allotted to three different industries, including Messrs Jan Carpets and Messrs Sangeen Marbles, to whom one acre each has been given and they have raised construction thereon.
5. We have given our anxious consideration to the respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and have perused record of the case minutely, with their assistance.
6. Record reveals that the plot in question was allotted to the petitioner in the year 1983 and despite lapse of about 28 years construction was not raised thereon. Time and again the petitioner was asked to do the needful but he turned a deaf ear. After cancellation of allotment on 21-2-1989 another chance was given to the petitioner-company but that too, was not availed, therefore, per force it was again cancelled. The learned Judge in the High Court while taking notice of all these facts has held that cancellation was justified and that suit filed by the petitioner was rightly dismissed by the Civil Court and upheld by the learned Additional Sessions Judge. Observations made in paras.4 and 5 of the impugned judgment are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference:- "(4) As stated hereinbefore, the plot was allotted about a quarter of century ago for the establishment of an industry. The plaintiff-petitioner has failed to raise construction thereupon or to establish an industry. The earlier cancellation was withdrawn by extending the gesture of promoting industry and in the said compromise on behalf of respondent-Authority it has been mentioned that they had no objection to the restoration of the allotment if the plaintiffs "bonafidely intend to establish the industry viz. Beaurages on the plot allotted to them within one year". Thus, the defendants/respondents had extended extraordinary favour and concession to the plaintiff/petitioner to display their bona fide and to establish the factory as intended by them but they failed to do so and therefore, defendant/ respondents had no option but to cancel the plot.
(5) The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the construction of industrial building was conditional on the availability of finances from the financial institution but, due to various shortcomings, the said loan had not yet been sanctioned, therefore, the industry could not be established. This is no justice to further prolong the matter. Industrial schemes are announced by the Government for the Industrialization of the country and plots are allotted on lease at nominal rates to encourage the investors and the potential industrialists. The allottees have neither any financial base of their own nor do they have experience of running such undertaking and, the case in hand is a unique example where the allottee of an industrial plot has not been able to take a single step for the establishment of a factory despite the lapse of more than two decades. D.F.I.'s cannot extend the facility of loan to such non-serious allottees of industrial plots. The allottee has to spend considerable amount to display his interest, capability and resources. Since the industrial loans are granted on 40-60 basis, therefore, the allottee has to furnish the proof of his investment to the extent of 40% of the required capital. In the case of failure to prove such investment, the Bank or other financial institution either do not sanction the loan or do not release the loan or the balance thereof. By failure to establish the industry, the plaintiff/petitioner has not only violated his commitment of industrialization but has also deprived any other potential investor. The allotment was never made on the condition of availability of loan. It was the responsibility of the allottee to arrange for finances. If the finances could not be arranged during such a long period and the petitioner has not been able to prove his seriousness by commencing the construction and installation of industry, the respondents/defendants were justified to cancel the plot and since the petitioner/plaintiff had no merits, therefore, the Courts were justified to dismiss the suit and the appeal accordingly."
7. Upshot of the above discussion is that the reasons weighed with the learned Single Judge of the Peshawar High Court in the above cited revision fully conforms to the requirement of law and does not call for interference by this Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction. The petition being misconceived is hereby dismissed and .