' M. TABASSUM AFTAB ALVI, J.---The supra titled writ petition has been addressed under section 44 of. The Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974, whereby order of reinstatement dated 29-9-1997 passed by Chairman Mirpur Development Authority Mirpur pertaining to Plot No,10, measuring 50'X90' situated in Sector F/3 Part-IV Mirpur and order dated 16-1-2006 transferring the above plot by respondent No,4 to respondent No,6 have been challenged for having been passed without lawful authority, hence, having no legal effect.
2. Precise facts giving rise to the instant writ petition are that petitioner is first class State Subject who is permanent resident holder of Village Kas Kalyal, Tehsil and District Mirpur and settled in U.K.
It is claimed that petitioner is eligible for allotment of a plot from Overseas quota, hence, applied for a residential plot to respondent No,1 along with receipt depositing earnest money, on 17-7-2000.
It is stated that respondent No, 4, who is also settled in U.K. Along with his family since long, moved an application for allotment of plot through respondent No,7 who affixed fictitious signature on behalf of former, with request for allotment of plot being Mangla Dam affectee without depositing any earnest money, on 22-11-1987. By entertaining the above application respondents Nos.1 to 3 in violation of their own rules, allotted the disputed plot to respondent No,4 on 3-2-1988. It is further stated that respondent No,3 issued notice for payment of costs of the said plot, however, as respondent No,4 was not available, therefore, after holding inquiry chairman respondent No,2, cancelled allotment of the above respondent vide order dated 15-7-1997. Thereafter, an application was moved by respondent No,6, stating therein, that as all installments of the disputed plot were deposited, therefore, prayed for restoration of allotment of respondent No,4 and on the basis of report submitted by staff of MDA pertaining to payment of entire price, the plot was re- allotted to respondent No,4 vide impugned order dated 24-9-1997. Against the abovementioned order the instant writ petition was filed before this Court on 27-8-2003. The writ petition, however, was dismissed for non-prosecution vide order dated 22-9-2005. An application for restoration of the same was filed on 11-11-2005, which was allowed vide order dated 8-2-2011. It is claimed that during the abovementioned period, respondent No,4 transferred the plot in question in favour of respondent No,6 on 16-1-2006, which transaction Was also challenged through seeking amendment in writ petition which was allowed vide order dated 8-6-2011.
3. After admission of writ petition, official respondents Nos.1 to 3 filed written statement, stating therein, that against the impugned orders petitioner is having no locus-standi to file the instant writ petition. It is claimed that petitioner has not invoked jurisdiction of this Court with clean hands, hence, not entitled for any relief. It is also alleged that various questions of facts are involved in the petition which cannot be resolved while exercising writ jurisdiction. It is, further stated that application of petitioner for allotment shall be disposed off as and when plot will be available for the purpose of allotment. It is inserted that allotment order was issued in favour of respondent No,4 in accordance with law, which was cancelled due to non-payment of price. However subsequently price was paid, hence, allotment order of private respondents No, 4 was restored vide order dated 24-9-1997. The private respondents have also filed detailed written statement, stating therein, that writ petition is attracted by laches which is not maintainable under law. It is also stated that all documents appended with writ petition were obtained and signed by father of petitioner, hence, the same is bad in law even from this angle. It is claimed that at the time of moving application for allotment, the petitioner was in U.K. Who was also minor of about 8 years at the then time, therefore, was not entitled for the same. It is further claimed that disputed plot was allotted in the year 1988 to private respondent No,4 and thereafter, thousands of allotments were made even in favour of numerous non-deserving persons against whom no writ petition was.Filed, however, the instant writ was filed due to mens-rea and malice. It is further stated that writ petition was also filed for'illgotten gains which merit dismissal as such. It is claimed that petitioner applied for allotment from Overseas quota while the disputed plot was allotted to respondent No,4 from general pool, hence, writ petition merit dismissal. It is also alleged that numerous plots were allotted in the names of Mother, Sisters and father of petitioner, however, record thereof was destroyed in collusion with the then Chairman Mirpur Development Authority, Mirpur, being close relative of father of petitioner. The contents of writ petition as a whole have also been controverted by the private respondents.
4. The learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum, Advocate, while reiterating grounds of writ petition submitted that at the time of filing application respondent No,4 was settled in U.K. Which application was signed by respondent No,7, therefore, on the basis of above application no allotment could be made in favour of private respondent No,4, Ch. Muhammad Arif.
The learned counsel pressed into service that the above respondent later on, gifted disputed plot to respondent No,6, who was already allottee of another plot, therefore, all proceedings pertaining to plot in question are unlawful. The learned counsel further emphasized that petitioner is having locus-standi to challenge the allotment of respondent No,4 because in case of cancellation of plot, the same can be allotted to petitioner. The learned counsel in support of his contention referred to and relied upon Muhammad Arshad Khan v. Chairman MDA and 6 others (1997 M LD 3066), Dr. Muhammad Akram, v. Allotment Committee, Mirpur Development Authority (PLD 1985 SC AJ&K 113) and two unreported judgments of the apex. Court passed in Civil Appeal. No, 58 of 1997 titled Abdul Karim v. Revising Authority, Mirpur Development Authority, Mirpur and others dated 28-4-1998 and Civil Appeal No,4 of 1994 titled Sabir Hussain v. Azad Govt. And others dated 22-3-1995.
5. The learned counsel for respondents Messrs Muhammad Younus Arvi and Ch. Riaz Alam, Advocates, while controverting the arguments of the learned counsel for petitioner submitted that disputed plot was allotted to respondent No,4 on 3-2-1988, while petitioner moved an Application for allotment on 12-7-2000, that too for not plot in question, therefore, he is not an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The learned counsel pressed into service that petitioner applied for allotment of plot against the quota of Overseas, whereas, disputed plot was allotted to respondent No,4 from general quota, hence, petitioner is again having no locusstandi to file the instant writ petition. The learned counsel emphasized that against the allotment order dated 3-2-1988, restored vide order dated 24-9-1997, the instant writ petition was filed on 27-8-2003, which is attracted by laches of about 15 years from initial order of allotment and 6 years from order of restoration, which is liable to be dismissed as such. The learned counsel further submitted that all documents appended with writ petition were obtained by the father of petitioner, hence, writ petition is bad in law. The learned counsel, in support of their contention referred to and relied upon cases law titled Muhammad Aslam v. Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur and 3 others (PLD 1991 AJ&K 23) and an unreported judgment of the apex Court passed in Civil PLA No,20 of 2005 titled Sadia Bostan v. Municipal Corporation Mirpur and others decided on 1-4-2005.
6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record. The plot in question: admittedly, was allotted to respondent No,4 by Mirpur Development Authority, Mirpur on 3-21988, which was cancelled due to non-payment of price vide order dated 15-7-1997, however, after depositing whole amount, the same was restored in favour of the above respondent vide order dated 24-9-1997. The petitioner presuming the same as re-allotment challenged the order dated 24-9-1997 along with its ancillary proceedings through the instant writ petition filed on 27-8- 2003. It is liable to be observed here that order dated 24-9-1997 is not re-allotment in favour of respondent No,4 as alleged by petitioner which is in-fact restoration of his previous allotment dated 3-2-1988. The .Perusal of writ petition reveals that petitioner failed to challenge the basic allotment order passed by Mirpur A Development Authority in favour of private respondent No,4 dated 3-21988, therefore, the instant writ petition, without challenging the basic allotment order is not maintainable.
7. Even otherwise, against restoration order dated 24-9-1997, the instant writ petition was filed on 27-8-2003, which is attracted by lathes extended over about six years. There is no any explanation whatsoever about such a long delay for filing the writ petition, thus, the challenge made to the order dated 24-9-1997 badly suffers from laches. A reference may be made to a case reported as Azad Govt. Of the State of Jammu and Kashmir v. Haji Summandar Khan 1995 M LD 1350 at Page 1360 of precedent case, it was observed by their lordships as under:- "However, even otherwise, the writ petition filed by the respondents must fail because as has been observed in the earlier part of the judgment the present writ petitions were filed by the respondents after the expiry of 6 to 9 months from the date of the delivery of the judgment by the High Court in the two writ petitions referred to above. The learned counsel for the petitioners respondents maintained that after the judgment of the High Court in the writ petitions filed by the other land owners they issued a notice to the Government to pay them the amount of compensation at the rate of Rs,40,000 per kanal within a period of 15 days to one month but they did not oblige. Even if we subtract the period of one month from the period reckoned from the date of the judgment of the High Court in the said writ petitions even the writ petitions are belated by 5 to 8 months. There is no explanation whatsoever for the aforesaid delay and, thus, the writ petitions would still be hit by laches".
' Another un-reported judgment of the apex Court in Civil Appeal No, 58 of 1997 titled Abdul Karim v.
Revising Authority, MDA Mirpur and others dated 28-4-1998 referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner is also against his version. Para 6 of the above unreported judgment is reproduced as under:-- "The next question which falls for determination is as to whether the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, suffered from laches. It may be stated that initially, the appellant only challenged the order of the Revision Authority dated 25-2-1993, whereby the allotment order made in favour of respondent No,4 on 27-2-1990 was confirmed; he did not challenged the basic order of allotment dated 27-2-1990 made in favour of respondent No,4 in the first instance. He made an application on 13-12-1994 for the amendment of his writ petition so as to challenge the basic order of allotment dated 27-2-1990; the amendment was allowed by the High Court vide its order dated 17-12-1995. However, it was contended that the appellant came to know about the basic order dated 27-2-1990, when the respondent filed the written statement to the writ petition.
A perusal of the record reveals that the written statement in the case was filed by respondent No,4 on 15-9-1993. Thus, the application for amendment of the writ petition was filed about 15 months after the filing of the written statement by respondent No,4. Assuming for the sake of arguments that the appellant had no knowledge of the order dated 27-9-1990 prior to filing of the written statement by respondent No,4, the order dated 27-2-1990 was challenged after 15 months of the knowledge for which no explanation whatsoever was given. Thus, the challenge made to the order dated 27-2-1990 badly suffered from laches. A reference may be made 'to a case reported as Azad Government of the State of J&K v. Haji Summandar Khan (1995 MLD 1350) in support of the view that the writ petition which suffers from laches even in case of a void order is liable to dismissal on this sole ground. The dictum of this Court in Muhammad Arshad Khan v. Chairman Mirpur Development Authority and others [Civil Appeal No,26 of 1996 decided on 22-12-1996 and Shahid Munir v. Mayor Chairman Municipal Corporation Mirpur and others [Civil Appeal No,50 of 1995 decided on 27-11-1995] referred to above and relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable, as is evident from the facts of the said case narrated in the earlier part of this judgment. Thus, we are of the view that the High Court did not commit an error while observing that the writ petition filed by the appellant, herein, suffered from laches on the ground that the order dated 27-2-1990 was challenged almost three years of the order and about 15 months of the knowledge of the same according to appellant's own case".
8. The disputed plot was allotted to respondent No,4 on 3-2-1988, while petition applied for allotment on 12-7-2000, that too against the quota of Overseas. At the time of petitioner's application, plot in question was not available for allotment therefore, he is not covering in the definition of an aggrieved party within the meaning of section 44 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution Act, 1974. The petitioner applied for allotment against Overseas quota while disputed Plot was allotted to respondent No,4 from general quota, therefore, again he is having no locus-standi to challenge allotment of the said respondent. In this regard, precedent referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner Civil Appeal No,58 of 1997 titled Abdul Karim v. Revising Authority Mirpur Development Authority, Mirpur and others 28-4-1998, does not support his version which is also distinguishable. Similarly, an un-reported judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No,4 of 1994 titled Sabir Hussain v. Azad Govt. And others, decided on 22-3-1995, is also not applicable in the instant case as in that case the petitioner was possessing, plot which could not be regularized to him under rule 16 of the Mirpur Municipal Committee Regularization for Development and Disposal of Plots/Estate Rules, 1985, however, the above rule does not apply in the present case. Likewise, the case referred to by the learned counsel for petitioner titled Muhammad Arshad Khan v. Chairman MDA and 6 others, (1997 M LD 3066) is distinguishable. In another case cited by learned counsel for petitioner titled Dr. Muhammad Ikram v. Allotment Committee, Mirpur Development Authority (PLD 1985 SC (AJ&K) 113), in which, 'inter alia, it was held that in presence of first allotment for residential purpose second allotment of plot for any purpose was barred by law. However, case-law referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for respondents titled Muhammad Aslam v. Chairman Municipal Committee Mirpur and 3 others, (PLD 1991 AJ&K 23) supports the version of respondents on the point of locus standi. At page 25 of the report it was held as under:- "Again per site-plan "RA" or "P/1" Plot No,9-H is situated across the road towards East whereas Plot No,10-B/1 is situated towards west of the road whereas "RA" or "P/1" the width of the road has been shown as 40 feet. The petitioner applied for Plot No,10-B/1 or for some piece of land adjoining to this plot that, definitely will be west side of the road. The petitioner in these circumstances, is not found aggrieved person because from the record and his own application it is quite clear that he has not suffered from any legal grievance nor any decision has been given against his interest nor he has been wrongly deprived of the plot for which he had ever applied. The above view finds support from PLD 1967 Pesh.
347. The relevant observations at page 350 are reproduced below:-- "From the writ petition it is clear that the land situated in the left side of the road belongs to the respondents, and in these circumstances, the petitioner has failed to prove the violation of a legal right vested in him".
' Likewise in Civil PLA No,20 of 2005, titled Sadia Bostan v. Municipal Committee Mirpur and others decided on 1-4-2005 it was held by the Apex Court in para 06 of the above case as under:-- "The petitioner has claimed her entitlement for the allotment of any residential plot. In the year 2000 for the first time she applied for residential plot and deposited earnest money in the account of Mirpur Development Authority. The allotment in question was obtained by respondent No, 7 in the year 1988. She, under these circumstances, was not an aggrieved person particularly when she had not applied either for this plot or had moved an application prior to the allotment of the plot in question in the name of respondent No,7. Therefore, she was not aggrieved and her writ petition even from this angle was not maintainable which was rightly dismissed by the High Court".
9.' The perusal of record also reveals that attested copies appended with writ petition were not obtained in the name of petitioner, therefore, writ petition filed by petitioner is hit by rule of law laid down by the apex Court in Civil PLA No,20 of 2005 titled Sadia Bostan v. Municipal Corporation Mirpur and 7 others decided on 1-4-2005. Para 5 of the report is reproduced as under:-- "I have considered respective arguments of the parties and perused the record. The provisions contained in' the Code of Civil Procedure so for as they are applicable govern the procedure in writ jurisdiction. Under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure ,a party can initiate any civil proceedings in civil matters either personally or through his/her attorney/advocate.
Thebloodrelationsareimmaterial. In the present case I summoned the original file from the High Court to satisfy myself as to whether the copies appended with the writ petition were obtained by the petitioner's father. All the copies which were annexed with the writ petition were obtained by one Bostan son of Karam Ellahi. On the basis of those copies the writ Petition was filed by the present petitioner. As the copies of the relevant documents were not obtained by the petitioner or in her name, therefore, the writ petition was not properly constituted. The learned Judge in the High Court, therefore, committed no error in law while dismissing her writ petition on this ground".
10. In the light of what has been discussed above, finding no substance in the instant writ petition, the same is hereby dismissed with costs.
(Note) The Deputy Registrar Circuit Mirpur is hereby directed to announce the order in presence of the parties or their counsel.