' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---According to the petitioner his 16-10-2003 predecessor in interest one Mst. Nishat Fatima was allotted a plot of 120 Square Yards in Korangi Township. Occupancy charges were paid vide challan, dated 18-3-1976 and a formal allotment order was issued on 24-3-1976.
Apparently possession was delivered to the allottee on 13-4-1985. The petitioner subsequently purchased occupancy rights in the plot from the allottee. A formal letter, dated 12-10-1990 issued by the KDA acknowledging him as holder of occupancy rights and stating that his name had been substituted in the record and transfer/mutation of the plot had been effected. Photocopies of the payment challan, allotment order, possession order and the above letter have been placed on record.
2. It is contended that while the petitioner is still in possession of the plot it appears that on 7-1- 2003 the respondent No.1 chose to "auction" different plots in several schemes of the respondents.
In this exercise the petitioner's plot was purported to have been auctioned in favor of the respondent No.2. The petitioner upon hearing the above, dispatched notices to the respondents claiming that he cannot be deprived of his valuable rights in the property but received no response. Thereafter, he moved this Court.
3. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and notices issued to both the respondents, who were duly served. The respondent No.2, however, did not even care to enter appearance. The Respondent No.1 has filed para-wise comments in Court today. Interestingly, however, in these comments it is stated on the one hand that the petitioner is an encroacher and the plot has been occupied on forged and fictitious documents, at the same time, it is averred that no record of the aforesaid property is available with the KDA. We are constrained to observe that such allegations might possibly furnish cause of action for defamation to the aggrieved party. Nevertheless, we are not concerned with this question.
4. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed attempted to argue that according the petitioner's own showing he only claimed allotment and no document of title by way of a registered deed had been executed in his favour. Accordingly he cannot claim a right in the property. We are afraid this proposition is contrary to the well-settled law operating for more than quarter of a century that allotment order by the KDA creates rights in the immovable property. One may refer inter alia to the pronouncement of this Court in Haji Noor Muhammad v. KDA (PLD 1975 Karachi 373) and Mr. Manzoor Ahmed was unable to show that a contrary view had ever been taken ever since.
5. In any event statement of facts made in the para-wise comments filed on behalf of respondent No.1 in so far as they contradict the averments of the contents of the memo. Of petitioner, can be given no effect. It is well settled that a statement verified on oath must be rebutted by a similar statement on oath. Nobody on behalf of the respondent No.1 has caused to do so.
6. It may also be added, that in case the respondent No.1 honestly felt at any point of time. That the allotment order in possession of the petitioner was not forged or had been obtained through illegal means. Cancellation of the same could have always be sought in accordance with law. Obviously, this was never done. Let it be made clear that all public authorities including the respondent No.1 are bound by limitations imposed by law and if they assume themselves to be above law, they are seriously mistaken.
7. For the foregoing reasons, we would allow this petition and restrain the respondents from interfering with the allotment rights of the petitioner except in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the City Nazim.