' HAMID ALI MIRZA, J.--- This civil petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment, dated 20-7-2004 in Constitutional Petition No,D-390 of 1998 which was dismissed by learned Division Bench of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi hence this petition for leave to appeal.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner filed constitutional petition against the respondent praying therein to declare that the order dated 14-4-1988 passed by the respondent, was without jurisdiction, illegal, without lawful authority and of no legal effect with further direction to the respondent to withdraw, rescind/cancel the impugned decision and restore the plot in question to the petitioner with further prayer to restrain and prohibit the respondent from allotting, transferring, sub-leasing, alienating and disposing of Plot No,104-C, Khayaban-e-Badar, Phase VII measuring 600 square yards situated in Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, Karachi, which constitution petition was dismissed vide impugned judgment.
3. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner was allotted Plot No,104-C, Khayaban-e-Badar, Phase VII in Pakistan Defence Officers Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi by the Managing Committee of the dissolved Society, the predecessor of the respondents-Authority, which allowed the allotment of the said plot vide meeting held on 13-4-1976 and further, that petitioner made payment of Rs,35,165 in pursuance of the allotment letter issued to him, therefore, the respondent could not cancel plot in dispute of which "A" lease was executed in his favour, considering that the substantial right was created in favour of the petitioner which could not be taken away by the respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the respondent submitted that entire process of issuing of allotment, making payment towards price and other dues in respect of the point in dispute and execution of "A" lease was fraudulent, bogus, illegal and was done with mala fide intention by the then Secretary of the Society namely, Lt. Col. (R) G.M. Nizamuddin, who was found to be involved in a large number of cases of fraudulent, bogus and illegal allotments in favour of several persons including the petitioner and all such allotments/transfers were cancelled by the respondent in exercise of its powers under Article 17(h) of the Presidents' Order. He further submitted that no vested or substantial right was created in favour of the petitioner as entire process was based on fraud and forgery.
5. We do not find merit and substance in the contentions of the learned counsel for the petitioner.
6. Learned Division Bench of the Sindh High Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the entire record before it and also having called the original record with regard to the holding of meeting of the Managing Committee of the Society came to the conclusion that no meeting of Managing Committee was held on 13-4-1976, therefore, entire process of allotment of the plot in dispute and its subsequent payment and execution of "A" lease in favour of the petitioner was without legal and lawful authority. It may also be observed that in earlier round of litigation this Court vide order, dated 3-7-1994 remanded the case for fresh decision to the High Court to examine the proceedings of the meeting of Managing Committee of the former dissolved society alleged to have been held on 13-4-1976 for doing complete justice to the parties and for just decision of the constitutional petition. In view of above order of this Court, the Minute Book was called and perused by the High Court and the learned Division Bench observed as under:-- "It was for this reason that we had asked Mr. Nazar Hussain Dhoon to produce the Minute Book of the meetings of the Managing Committee of the Society for the year 1976, which was duly complied with by him. From perusal of the Minutes Book, it transpires that no meeting of the Managing Committee had taken place on 13-4-1976. It was further revealed that meeting No,3 of 1976 was held on 29-3-1976; and subsequent meetings were held after 19-4-1976 but no meeting had taken place on 13-4-1976 as was claimed by the petitioner. Neither in the meeting of 29-3-1976 nor in the meeting of 19-4-1976 there was any material relating to the allotment of the plot in favour of the petitioner. Perusal of the Minutes Book of the meetings of the Managing Committee for the year 1976 completely erased the basis for allotment of the said plot in favour of the petitioner. It is to be noted that during the course of arguments before the Supreme Court the counsel for the petitioner had conceded that the allotment of the said plot in favour of the petitioner could be made by the Managing Committee of the Society in accordance with the by-laws of the Society. The petitioner has failed to produce a valid and proper order of the Managing Committee of the Society whereby a decision to allot the said plot in his favour was made. The facts and circumstances lend support to the contention of Mr. Nazar Hussain Dhoon that the allotment letter dated 25-1-1978 was a fraudulent, bogus and illegal letter issued by the then Secretary to the Society who, according to Mr. Nazar Hussain Dhoon, was found involved in grave and serious practice of fraudulent, illegal and mala fides allotments of the plots in favour of several persons including the petitioner."
Mere fact that the petitioner got the so-called allotment issued in his favour and made deposit of an amount of Rs,35,165 towards the price of plot and "A" lease was executed in his favour by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondent would not by itself be sufficient to create or convey any vested legal right in favour of the petitioner considering that very basis of allotment in favour of petitioner in a meeting of the Managing Committee of the dissolved Society having not been held on 13-4-1976 which was admittedly the only authority to make allotment, therefore, the very basis of allotment was based on forgery, fraud and in contravention of bye-laws of the Society and resolution of Managing Committee of the Society hence would lose its validity as such fall to the ground, consequently no legal allotment could have been issued in favour of the petitioner. It is settled principle of law that if on the basis of a void order subsequent orders have been passed either by the same authority or by other authorities, the whole series of such orders, together with the superstructure of rights and obligations built upon them, must, unless some statute or principle of law recognizing as legal, the changed position of the parties is in operation, fall to the ground because such orders have as little legal foundation as the void order on which the instant case the very basis of allotment being illegal, void ab initio consequently no legal right was conveyed as such payment and execution of "A" lease in favour of petitioner was illegal void ab initio hence of no effect and would not create any right or privilege in favour of the petitioner in respect of said plot, therefore, the respondents were quite competent to cancel the allotment of plot under proviso
(i) of Article 17(h) of the President's Order No,7 of 1980 which reads:-- "Provided that the Executive Board may--
(i) cancel such allotments which were made or issued in contravention of the Bye-Laws of the Society or the resolution of the Managing Committee of the Society;"
7. In view of aforesaid reasons no case for grant of leave to appeal is made out which is hereby declined and the petition is dismissed.