' SAIF-UR-REHMAN, J.---The District Coordination Officer issued letter No,1794/DO (Coord) dated 27- 6-2008 addressed to the Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Sahiwal and Deputy District Officer (Revenue) Chichawatni on the subject:--"STOPPAGE OF REGISTRATION AND MUTATIONS OF PLOTS IN PRIVATE HOUSING COLONIES" which reads as under;-- "Please refer to the subject noted above.
2. It has come to the notice of the District Coordination Officer, Sahiwal that different private housing colonies are mushrooming in District Sahiwal without getting prior approval from the concerned TMA and the District Scrutiny Committee.
3. You are, therefore, requested to stop registration and mutations in the names of such colonies or in the name of purchasers of plots from such colonies with. Immediate effect, till further orders.
Your confirmation report should reach this office within a week."
4(sic) The petitioner in this writ petition is admittedly a contractor of TMA Sahiwal for collection of taxes on transfer of immovable property who obtained lease for a sum of Rs,4,03,10,000 (four crore three lacs and ten thousand) for the current year. His grievance is that under the garb of the above mentioned letter, District Officer Registration and Deputy District Registration Officer was not registering even the other lawful transactions and likewise the mutations, too, were not being attested. This constitutional petition challenging vires of the above mentioned order praying that the same be declared as without lawful authority and of no legal subsequence; respondents Nos.1 and 2 be restrained to cause any interference in the registration of the mutations of the transfer deeds and attestation of the mutations; and the TMA i.e, respondent No,5 be directed to adjust the amount of loss suffered by the petitioner on account of aforesaid letter.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the ground mentioned in the petition in support of his contentions.
6. Conversely learned A.A-G. Submitted that no embargo has been placed on clean transactions.
The restriction had only been put on the private housing colonies which had failed to obtain permission as required under the law.
7. I have considered the respective contentions of the parties in the light of relevant law. Article 23 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan says:-- "Every citizen shall have the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan, subject to the Constitution and any reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest".
8. Article 24 further requires that:--- "no person shall be deprived of his property save in accordance with law."
9. The two articles above referred thereby declare acquisition of property as fundamental right of citizen and guarantees its protection. None can be deprived of the same save in accordance with law. This right cannot be curtailed by putting any restriction on the citizen.
10. A perusal of the impugned order would show that restriction on registration and attestation of mutations has been placed on private housing colonies without defining them in the aforesaid letter and through a general direction, right of transfer and acquisition of property has been circumvented. If any private housing colony had been formed without observance of the legal requirements, the action should have been taken against such colonies and prohibitory orders should have been passed against them. Under the cover of scope above direction, registration and mutations of even lawful transactions could be declined. I find force in the contentions of the learned, counsel for the petitioner that the same was being done on the basis of the impugned letter.
11. In view of the above, the impugned direction contained in the above mentioned letter is held to be violative of the law and the Constitution which is hereby set aside.
12. The first part of the prayer is answered accordingly.
13. The second part of the prayer relates to adjustment of the contract amount of the petitioner with TMA. This controversy cannot be resolved without holding an inquiry which is not possible in exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. The petitioner may approach respondent No,5 if he feels aggrieved of any such act and if his grievance is not redressed, he may invoke the remedy of getting the dispute settled through arbitration as agreed upon him and respondent No,5 in condition No,21 of the agreement. If any recourse is made to clause 21 of the agreement, the controversy shall be decided by Arbitrator within out month. Disposed of accordingly.