Briefly the facts are that Respondent No, 3 (Col. Karmat Ullah) applied for allotment of Plot No, 20 by moving an application on 04.1.1966 before the Chairman, Improvement Trust, Bahawalpur, which application was approved by him on 23,2.1966, as such Plot No, 20 was allotted to Respondent No, 3 and on 28.4.1966 Rs,2000/- were deposited by the respondent towards part consideration of the said plot. On the basis of order of allotment, a notice dated 28.4.1966 was issued to Respondent No, 3 through which he was informed that Plot No, 20 had been formally approved by the Chairman in Model Town-A Extension Scheme. After the said allotment, site-plan for construction over the said plot measuring 54000-Sq.Feet was sanctioned by X.E.N building and possession was also handed over to him. The matter was then put in the meeting of Improvement Trust, Bahawalpur held on 14th of May, 1969, wherein, a proposal was adopted that land not more than 3-kanal of the said plot be allotted to Respondent No,
3. The said proposal of the Meeting was conveyed to Respondent No, 3 vide letter (ANNEX-C) dated 15.5.1969, which was challenged in appeal before the Deputy Commissioner and the matter was remanded to the Improvement Trust. However, again the order was passed against Respondent No,
3. The Respondent No, 3 assailed the said order before the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division who vide order dated 10.07.1991 accepted the appeal of Respondent No, 3 and declared that Municipal Committee could not reduce the size of Plot No, 20 in its meeting dated 14.5.1969 and that Respondent No, 3 was a bona fide allottee of Plot No, 20 measuring 54000-sq.Foot, as such the respondent was directed to deposit Rs,38500/- at the rate of 75 Paisa per Square Foot, as approved by the Members of the Improvement Trust Board. This writ petition has been filed by the Municipal Corporation against the above decision of the 'Commissioner.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that plot in question was in fact allotted to Respondent No, 3 to the extent of 3-kanal only instead of 54000-sq. Ft. in the meeting held on 14.5.1969. Further submits that after perusal of the minuets of the said meeting, it becomes clear that suggestion was given to the department that plot measuring 54000-Sq.Feet should not be allotted to Respondent No, 3 in its entirety i,e, not more than 3-kanals. It was further argued that order dated 25.4.1966 passed by the Chairman Improvement Trust Board by itself was not sufficient to validate the allotment of the entire plot in favour of Respondent No, 3, rather the same was only subject to approval of the Board and that the Board in its meeting had only consented to the allotment of 3- kanal portion of Plot No, 20 in favour of Respondent No, 3 and not more. It is thus, concluded that through the impugned order Commissioner could not hold the Respondent No, 3 entitled for whole of the plot.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 has contended that according to the minutes of the meeting of the Improvement Trust Board, Plot No, 20 was allotted as a whole in favour of Respondent No, 3 by confirming the earlier allotment order issued by the Chairman Improvement Trust Board dated 23.2.1966. According to the learned counsel this fact was further endorsed by the Board in its meeting held on 26.11.1969 (ANNEX-D). It is further contended that after allotment in favour of Respondent No, 3, even the site-plan submitted by Respondent No, 3 was also approved by X.E.N. Building for whole of the plot and only thereafter, he raised construction over the said plot. It is lastly argued that there is no precedent available with the petitioner to show that in the said Scheme any plot was allotted in piecemeal but was allotted in its entirety.
4. I have heard the arguments of learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the available record with their assistance.
During the course of arguments, learned counsel for Respondent No, 3 referred to a document, purportedly the minutes of the meeting dated 24.9.1969, which document when presented to the learned counsel for petitioner, he could not verify its authenticity and sought time to go through the original record of the petitioner department. Today, Muhammad Ashraf Clerk of the department appeared along with original record and when seen by this Court, the said document is very much available on department papers, in original. Furthermore, the learned counsel for the petitioner was also required to produce any document as precedent to show that in the year 1969 any plot in the same vicinity was allotted to any one in parts. After perusing the entire record, learned counsel has also not been able to cite any such document, as such, it is established that plots were always allotted to the persons with its full dimension i,e, 54000-Sq.Ft. and not in parts, whereas, in the case in hand, the petitioner department is pleading that petitioner could not be allotted Plot No, 20 in full, which plea is discriminatory. It is also matter of record that Model Town-A scheme consisted of 8- kanals, 11-kanals or 12-kanals, etc. and this was the basic purpose behind the scheme for allotment of the plot to the persons as a whole and not by parts.
6. Apart from that, the master plan of the entire Model Town Scheme also shows that each and every plot in the said Scheme was not measuring less than 8-kanals. Furthermore, the site-plan submitted by Respondent No, 3 was also approved by the concerned authorities, and through the said site-plan the respondent had sought construction over the entire plot. Had there been any ambiguity about the allotment of whole plot in favour of the respondent, the concerned authority could have validly objected to such site-plan, whereas, it is admitted position that the site-plan submitted by Respondent No, 3, was validly approved.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any provision or any specific order through which Plot No, 20 was allotted to Respondent No, 3 only to the extent of 3-kanals, but on the contrary the original allotment order dated 23.21966 in favour of Respondent No, 3 is further supported/strengthened by the minutes of meeting held on 24.9.1969, which document has been verified to be correct and genuine, being available on the department papers in original shape.
8. There is yet another aspect of the matter that Respondent No, 3 remained in uninterrupted and continuous possession of entire Plot No, 20 with measurement of 54000-Sq.Feet but none came forward to claim that any part of the said plot was transgressed or illegally occupied by respondent, meaning thereby, since 1966 the title of Respondent No, 3 over Plot No, 20 remained unchallenged and further on consideration for such an allotment had also been deposited by Respondent No, 3 and received by the petitioner department. This fact also could not be controverted by learned counsel for the petitioner.
9. For what has been discussed above, I feel no hesitation in observing that Respondent No, 3 was very rightly allotted Plot No, 20 in Model Town-A Scheme, in its entirety i,e, with full strength of measurement, and the impugned order passed by the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity. Except bald oral assertions, as detailed above, the learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to demonstrate from any document that in the same vicinity and Scheme any plot was allotted to any person in parts, as such, the above contentions of learned counsel have no foundation to stand on; and in constitutional jurisdiction this Court cannot upset a legal order, merely on surmises and conjunctures. This petition, therefore, fails and is accordingly dismissed.