' SYED ZULFIQAR ALI BOKHARI, J.---The petitioners through this writ petition prayed for issuance of appropriate writ directing the respondents to redress their grievance by making allotments of plots in their favour in the Housing Scheme against their acquired land and to make payment of compensation in lieu of the rest of the plots at the prevalent market rates after deducting development and other charges.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioner's land measuring 104 Kanals and 9 Marlas situated in Shuja Abad, District Multan was acquired by the respondents under Punjab Acquisition of Land (Housing) Act (VIII of 1973) for establishing Housing Scheme. Compensation of the acquired land was offered to the owners @ of Rs,20,000 per acre. On the application of the petitioners for the adjustment of their due compensation equal to 30% of the acquired land, the respondents allotted 78 plots to them, the detail of which is as under:-- 1 Kanal 8 plots 10 Marlas 15 plots 7 Marlas 18 plots 5 Marlas 37 plots ' The details of the plots along with the details of the expenditures prepared by the respondents was handed over to the petitioners along with allotment order dated 23-11-1983. Thereafter petitioners were given possession of three plots measuring 1 Kanal each bearing Nos.105, 106 and 107 and delivery of possession of the remaining plots was kept pending. The petitioners having no apprehension of any foul play were satisfied, that the possession of the rest of plots would also be delivered to them as the allotments of those had been made in lieu of their land, acquired by the department but when the department unnecessarily delayed the matter on one or the other pretext, the petitioners made an application to the Minister Housing and Physical Planning Punjab which was forwarded to Director General Housing and Physical Planning Punjab and further was forwarded to respondent No,3 for report. Thereafter vide letter dated 28-3-1995 respondent No,6 submitted report to the Director General that 75 plots were surrendered by the allottees/petitioners through their attorney and three plots measuring 1 Kanal each were retained by them and the District Housing Committee in its meeting held on 16-2-1986 acceded the request of the applicants/petitioners.
3. That after getting knowledge about cancellation of the allotments of plots, petitioners again made an application to the Minister Housing and Physical Planning Punjab on 25-5-1995 contending therein that neither the petitioners appointed any body as their attorney now they made any application to surrender their plots and prayed that the petitioners be given possession of the plots in the scheme. This application was forwarded to respondent No,2 by the Minister who further forwarded the same to the Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning Government of the Punjab. The petitioners made another application to the Director General for restoration of the plots against the acquired land under Lands Owners Quota on 11-12-1995 who referred the matter to Director, Housing and Physical Planning Circle Multan with a direction to submit fact finding report within fourteen days. The petitioners submitted various applications to the respondents but without success. Ultimately, they filed writ petition No,4907 of 1999 in this Court which was disposed of on 17-6-1999 with a direction to Director General, Housing and Physical Planning Punjab, Lahore to consider the representation of the petitioners and to dispose of the same within a period of two months. Inspite of the direction of this Court respondents did not take serious steps for redressal of grievance of the petitioners. However, a letter dated 26-7-1999 was received by the petitioners from respondent No,2 along with an order dated 21-7-1999 passed by the Director General Housing and Physical Planning which has also been challenged in this petition.
4. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that impugned proceedings dated 16-6- 1986 held by the District Housing Committee and order dated 21-7-1999 passed by the Director General/respondent No,1 are not sustainable in the eyes of law and are liable to be declared void, nullity in the eyes of law having been passed without lawful authority. He contends that Mst. Ishrat Jahan, petitioner No,1 is a widow who was legal guardian of the other petitioners as they were minor at the time of passing of the order dated 16-2-1986. The petitioners neither appointed any person as their attorney nor they filed any application to surrender their 75 plots. The plots were allotted to them in lieu of 30% compensation of their acquired land by the respondents. So there was no need to surrender the same. It is also pertinent to mention here that no other compensation was awarded to the petitioners by the respondents in lieu of surrender of 75 plots. In the absence of any application or valid offer by the petitioners, the proceedings of the District Housing Committee, Multan dated 16-2-1986 are not warranted by law and void ab initio. The respondents have no legal authority to forfeit the above-said plots without any legal justification.
5. Learned A.A.-G appearing on behalf of the respondents along with Muhammad Tariq Javed, Deputy Director, Housing and Physical Planning submits that the petitioners themselves filed application for surrendering of 75 plots through their general power of attorney namely Syed Mahmood Ali Jaffari and District Housing Committee Multan considered that application of the petitioners in their meeting and allowed the same. He states that the petitioners have come to the Court after such a long period even it is a question of fact whether application to surrender the 75 plots were made by the petitioners or not and no writ lies on this point as a detail inquiry is required. The petitioners may approach the Civil Court for redressal of their grievance. Reliance is placed on the cases of Sheikh Muhammad Sadiq v. Elahi Bakhsh and 2 others 2006 SCM R 12 and Umer Hayat Khan v. Inayat Ullah Butt and others 1994 SCM R 572. On query about the application or documents of appointing Syed Mahmood Ali Jaffari as General power of attorney by the petitioners, learned Law Officer replies that both the documents are not available on the file. The same might have been removed by the petitioners to get undue benefit. He, however, concedes that no inquiry regarding removal of application and copy of general power of attorney given by the petitioners to Syed Mahmood Ali Jaffari appears to be held. The official present in Court states that perhaps an inquiry was held but file of that inquiry is not available in the office. Learned A.A.-G further states that the petitioners failed to , raise construction on the allotted plots within stipulated period and they had been moving application to the respondents for extention of time for construction and apprehending cancellation of all plots, they themselves surrendered 75 plots out of 78 and through this way they saved three plots.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have minutely perused the record.
7. I am afraid in the absence of any application or statement and any proof to appoint Syed Mahmood Ali Jaffari as attorney by the petitioners, the proceedings dated 16-2-1986 held by the District Housing Committee, Multan and on the basis of that proceedings order dated A 21-7-1999 passed by respondent No,1 could be sustained. The respondents failed to establish that meeting dated 16-2-1986 was validly held by the District Housing Committee Multan on the basis of valid documents and the same was conducted on the application of the petitioners validly submitted before them. So far as the other contentions of the learned A.A.-G are concerned the condition for construction of the plot could not be imposed on the petitioners because they are not allottees of the plots in the scheme like general allottees. They are allottes of the plots against their compensation of acquired land by the respondents and no condition could be imposed on them like others. So there was no question of cancellation of plots on the violation of any condition by the petitioners. Reply to the point of factual controversy is that there is no need of factual inquiry regarding holding a valid meeting by District Housing Committee Multan and passing a legal order on the basis of valid application as no document C like application of petitioners or any document regarding alleged general power of attorney is available and it can be held by this Court that no valid proceedings were held by the committee respondent No,5 on 16-2-1986. I have also gone through the case-law referred above and have guidance from it. My view is also the same that the High Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction only where the finding of some authority are suffered from patent illegality and non consideration of important material on record. In this case finding of fact of the committee and order, of respondent No,1 is not based on any material document so the same are subject E to judicial review of this Court and this Court can interfere in writ jurisdiction in the case in hand without hesitation.
8. For what has been discussed above, this writ petition is allowed. The proceedings dated 16-2- 1986 held by the District Housing Committee Multan and order dated 21-7-1999 passed by respondent No,1 on the basis of those proceedings are hereby declared without lawful authority, void ab initio in the eyes of law and F ineffective upon the rights of the petitioners and the same are quashed. So the respondents are hereby directed to deliver the possession of 75 plots already allotted to the petitioners in the above-said scheme. However, this will be subject to payment of development and other charges, if any, by the petitioners. No order as to costs. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.