' FAKHRUDDIN G. EBRAHIM, J.-This petition calls into question an order made by the Secretary to Government of Sind, Home Department under M. L.
0. 34 which order reads as follows:- "In terms of M. L.
0. 34, the amenity plot No, 1/7-A Block 6, P. E. C. H. Society allotted to Mr. Rehmatullah Shaikh stands cancelled and reverted to the authority (PECHS) in which it initially vested."
' In so far M. L. 0 34 is concerned, it provides as under:- "All allotments of the plots which were reserved for parks but were subsequently unauthorisedly converted into residential plots and on which no construction has been made are hereby cancelled and the plots so cancelled shall be resumed by the authority in which the plots initially vested . . .
2. Mr. Ahmed Said Qureshi, learned counsel for the petitioner challenged the aforesaid order on the short ground that M. L.
0. 34 is not attracted to the admitted facts of this case. The learned counsel pointed out that the plot in question was allotted to the petitioner as far back as 21-8-73 and even on the assumption that the said plot was at that time an amenity plot its conversion into residential plot was permitted by the Central Government vide letter dated 26-7-77 and admittedly under the agreement between the P. E. C. H. Society and the Central Government, the Central Government had the authority to allow such conversion. The letter dated 26-7-77 addressed by the Central Government to the Secretary, P. E. C. H. Society states that the Government of Pakistan had no objection to the creation of a new residential plot No, 1-7-A and its allotment to the petitioner subject to the fulfilment of certain conditions including payment of ground rent with effect from 31- 7-73. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner has not fulfilled these terms and it must, therefore, follow that the conversion was authorised. M. L.
0. 34 cancelled allotments of amenity plots which had been subsequently unauthorisedly coverted to a residential plot. In the present case the conversion as aforesaid, in so far as the Central Government is concerned, was authorised. Thus M. L.
0.-34 was no attracted and, therefore, the impugned action is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
3. Mr. Ibrahim Memon, learned Additional Advocate-General contended that the petitioner has alternative remedy inasmuch as he could make a representation against the impugned order. As far as M. L.
0. 34 is concerned, there is no provision for such a representation. The B impugned order does state that the petitioner may make a representation to the Martial Law Authorities but this can hardly be regarded as an adequate alternative remedy available in law. Mr. Azher Ali Siddiqui, learned counsel for the P. E. C. H. Society stated that the allotment of petitioner was cancelled by the Society as far back as 3-11-74 and, therefore, so far as the Society is concerned, the petitioner has no right, title or interest in the land in dispute. In the present facts we are not called to deetrmine the controversy between the petitioner and Society, for the present limited question is whether or not the impugned action under M. L.
0.-34 was warranted and to that the answer is in the negative. Out of abundant caution we would state that the disposal of this petition will not and in fact cannot prejudice either the Society or for that matter any person other than the authority which had taken action under M. L.
0. 34.
4. The petition is, therefore, allowed in the terms aforesaid with costs payable by the Provincial Government only.