' M. BILAL KHAN, C.J.--- We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length.
2. Quarter No,135/C (Sector G-6/2, Islamabad), which is the subject-matter of this lies, had been placed at the disposal of Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) Islamabad, by the Estate Office, vide its letter No,135-C, F6/2-E.II(C), Government of Pakistan, Estate Office, dated 9-10-1982, in exchange for Quarter No,175-B (Sector G-6/2, Islamabad). According to the record, it was after this development that the quarter in question had been allotted by the Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Islamabad to one Inspector Khalid Ibrahim and thereafter to Inspector Muhammad Safdar Khan, the predecessor-in-interest of the present appellants. It is also not denied that Inspector Muhammad Safdar Khan (later on promoted as DSP) had unfortunately passed away in June, 1995, whereupon, the present appellants, who were his legal heirs, have been occupying the quarter in dispute, for the last fourteen years.
3. Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, states that Ministry of Housing and Works, has granted one year period to the appellants, till 30-12-2009, to retain the quarter. His further contention is that since the quarter in question does not belong to the pool of police department, the Inspector-General Police, Islamabad was not vested with any authority to allot the same to Ameer Abbass (respondent No,1).
4. Joint Estate Officer, endorses the stand taken by the learned counsel for the appellants and reiterates that since the quarter does not belong to the pool of police department, Inspector- General Police did not have any authority to allot the same.
5. It must not be forgotten that late DSP Muhammad Safdar Khan, had procured allotment of the quarter in question from Superintendent of Police (Headquarters), Islamabad; that after his demise in the year, PLC (Serv(cr) 1995, the present appellants are clinging on to the residential quarter for the last almost fourteen years. It does not lie in their mouth now after a decade and a half, to assert that police have no authority to allot the quarter in question to someone else. The appellants have very conveniently overlooked that the quarter had been placed at the disposal of Superintendent of Police (Headquarters) Islamabad in exchange for Quarter No,175-B, G-6/2, Islamabad and not as a matter of benevolence.
6. Since the appellants had invoked constitutional jurisdiction of this court in the first instance, we are not inclined to pass any order, which is not equitable and just and is designed to perpetuate the advantage, which the appellants had been procuring for fourteen long years, to which obviously they were not entitled. We are also not inclined to disturb the impugned order dated 1-11- 2008, passed by the Inspector-General Police, Islamabad, whereby the quarter in question had been allotted to Ameer Abbass (respondent No,1) as we find the same to be just and equitable.
7. At this stage, on reconsideration Mr. Mushtaq Hussain Advocate, the learned counsel for the appellants, submitted that his clients would be willing to vacate the premises, if reasonable time was afforded to them, to make alternative arrangement.
8. Resultantly, gauging the matter from all angles, equity and fair play demand that the order of Inspector General of Police, Islamabad dated 1-11-2008 is sustained. We .
9. The appellants shall hand over vacant possession of the quarter in question to the Estate Office, on or before 50-9-2009 and the Estate Officer shall immediately hand over possession thereof to Ameer Abbass, Office Superintendent of Capital Territory Police, Islamabad (respondent No,1), under intimation to this court through its Deputy Registrar (Judi.). If the appellants fail to live up to their pledge made before this court, the quarter in question shall be got vacated by adopting coercive measures.
10. This order has been passed keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case and the observations recorded herein, shall not influence any litigation which we are told is pending before different benches of this court, where questions of entitlement or non-entitlement of different departments, are under adjudication.
11. Disposed of accordingly.