MUHAMMAD AMEER BHATTI, J. --- Through this petition, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 8.5.2004 issued by the respondent No. 2 declining the allotment of a plot measuring 1-K reserved for the sportsmen.
2. The brief facts of the case are that the respondents launched a Scheme No. 2 at Tehsil Samundari District Faisalabad and for that matter, applications were invited through publication in the daily newspaper Nawa-i-Waqt. It is added that under the policy of the Government, different categories of plots have been reserved under a quota system for different categories of plots have been reserved under a quota system for different walks of life including the sportsmen. One plot measuring 1-K category in development Scheme No. 2 was reserved for the allotment to the sportsmen. The petitioner being a sportsman of National and International repute vide Application No. 260, dated 28.2.1990 alongwith non-refundable deposit of Rs. 13,720/-, applied for the allotment of the said plot alongwith two other candidates of the same category who applied for the allotment of the said plot. After scrutiny of applications., the petitioner was found eligible for the allotment of the said plot.
3. The matter was pending for the balloting of the plot, .When the -Government introduced new policy dated 25.10.1993 whereby all quotas including the sportsmen quota was abolished.
Consequent upon this, the petitioner has been informed through a letter dated 5.2.2002 that under the new policy, the plot cannot be allotted to the petitioner. It is not out of place to mention here that through the petitioner before this letter made many applications informing the respondents that the Hon'ble Supreme Court and this Court have issued directions for the allotment of the plots to the petitioners, so, on the basis of that the petitioner was also eligible for the issuance of the allotment letter but through letter dated 5.2.2002, the respondent has refused to redress the grievance of the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved of the impugned order dated 52.2002, the Writ Petition No. 6119102 was filed but it was disposed of with the direction to respondent No. 2 to decide the application of the petitioner after setting aside the impugned order dated 5.2.2002 with the further direction to decide the case of the petitioner after providing opportunity of hearing to all the concerned including the petitioner strictly in accordance with law. Thereafter, through impugned order dated 8.5.2004, the petitioner has been refused the allotment of the said plot.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that after deposit of the sum of Rs. 13,720/- and after processing his application, he became eligible for allotment of plot No. 369 measuring 1-K out of 20% quota reserved for sportsmen. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in an identical case W.P. No. 13031/97 titled Rab Nawaz Vs. District Housing Committee and another, while accepting the writ petition, direction has been issued to decide the application of the petitioner according to the policy matter dated 23.12.1986. This order was challenged in the ICA No. 262/96 by the respondent which was dismissed by the learned Division Bench vide order dated 17.11.1996.
Learned counsel also relied on case CPLA No. 253-L-1997 whereby a direction for allotment of land issued by this Court has been upheld by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner while relying on another judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported as PLD 2007 SC 494 contends that since valuable right has accrued to the petitioner, the respondent has no authority to deny issuance of allotment letter thereafter.
5. On the other hand, the learned AAG appearing on behalf of the respondent contends that the only application of the petitioner was still under process of allotment, when the Government changed the policy, hence no right has accrued in favour of the petitioner. Mere filing of application and depositing of amount does not create any right as the matter had not attained finality.
6. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsels for the parties and perused the record and case-laws referred by the learned counsels.
7. The relevant portion of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case reported as PLD 2007 SC 494:-- "This Court in the case of Mehr Muhammad Amin, Advocate referred supra upheld the order of the learned High Court whereby respondent Advocate was allotted plot out of quota reserved for lawyers. It was also held therein that subsequent change in policy could not take away the vested right of allotment of plot in favour of respondent. The learned High Court while relying upon the earlier order passed by this Court in the case of Mehr Muhammad Amin (supra) directed appellants to allot plot to the respondent out of the quota reserved for journalists. In the instant case respondent applied for allotment of plot prior to the amendment in the policy as such vested right stood already accrued in his favour. Since respondent was found eligible for allotment of plot after completing formalities as such appellants cannot go back to their commitment on the pretext of change in the policy. Though argued at length yet learned AAG Punjab has failed to point out any illegality or misreading in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court.
We also do not find any ground to take a different view earlier taken by this Court in the above- referred case."
8.. Keeping in view the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, this Court has no option except to accept this petition and issue direction to the respondent No. 2 to pass an order for the allotment of the plot reserved for the sportsmen.
9. In view of the above discussion, this writ petition is allowed. No order as to costs. .