' RIAZ AHMAD KHAN, J.---This judgment is directed to dispose of Writ Petition No. 560 of 1999.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was allotted plot No.65, measuring 11.42 acres, situated in New Orchard Scheme, vide Letter dated 11-4-1981. Consequent to the said allotment, the petitioner deposited Rs,8,565/- with the Capital Development Authority. The allotment was regarding Lease and Lease agreement was executed on 29-10-1981. However, on 22-12-1981, the petitioner was informed that the above said allotment had not been approved by the Federal Government, as required under section 14 of the C.D.A. Ordinance, 1960 and the said scheme had been abolished by the Federal Government for public purpose. Under clause 20 of the above said Lease agreement dated 29-10-1981, allotment order was withdrawn and the agreement was terminated. The amount deposited was sent back to the petitioner. Against the said order, the petitioner filed complaint before the Wafaqi Mohtasib on 6-4-1994. The said application was accepted vide order dated 25-9-1994 by the Wafaqi Mohtasib and it was directed that either the same plot be restored to the complainant/petitioner or alternate plot at the appropriate place may be allotted to him. The Capital Development Authority challenged the order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib before the President of Pakistan, who vide order dated 22-7-1998, accepted the appeal/representation of the Capital Development Authority and the order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib was set aside. According to the petitioner, the said order was not communicated to him, so he wrote a letter to the Director Estate Management, C.D.A. Regarding fate of the appeal and he was informed vide letter dated 4-3-1999, that the appeal had been accepted; however in the said letter, it was also mentioned that the copy of the judgment had earlier been sent to him. The petitioner .
Challenged the said letter dated 4-3-1999, in this writ petition before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi. The writ petition' was accepted vide judgment dated 16-4-2001 and the respondents were directed to restore the possession of the plot to the petitioner and give effect to the recommendations of the Hon'ble Wafaqi Mohtasib. The said judgment was challenged before the apex Supreme Court of Pakistan. By a consent order, the judgment of Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi dated 16-4-2001, was set aside and the case was remanded back to the High Court for deciding it afresh on merits after giving full opportunity to both the parties of being heard. It was further observed that the matter be decided as early as possible preferably within a period of four months. The writ petition remained pending before the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi and after establishment of Islamabad High Court, same was transferred to this Court and first time put up before the Court on 29-4-2011.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contended that petitioner had been allotted disputed plot in accordance with law, agreement was executed, possession was delivered and in that way vested right had been created in favour of the petitioner. It was further contended that after allotment, the plot could not be cancelled and in that respect, order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib was in accordance with Law. It was further argued that the President had passed order in absence of petitioner and it was also not communicated to him. So, order of the President was not tenable.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondents contended that the allotment had been cancelled under clause (20) of the agreement on the basis of which petitioner claimed the allotment. It was further contended that under the agreement, respondents had authority to terminate the allotment in the public interest. It was further contended that the Wafaqi Mohtasib had no authority to assume the functions of the Civil Court, as the present case involves the rights of the parties, which could not be decided by Wafaqi Mohtasib. The order of Wafaqi Mohtasib as such was without jurisdiction and therefore void. It was further contended that same order had been set aside by the Hon'ble President and the said order 'was communicated to the petitioner.
Petitioner by concealing the fact regarding receiving the order of the President, challenged the subsequent letter from CDA and not the original order to the President, the writ petition as such is not maintainable.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the record.
6. In the present case, plot was cancelled vide letter dated 22-12-1981, petitioner filed complaint/representation before Wafaqi Mohtasib on 6-4-1994. Said application was accepted by Wafaqi Mohtasib vide order dated 25-9-1994. Appeal against the said order was accepted by the President of Pakistan vide letter dated 22-7-1998. The said order has not been challenged before this Court. The impugned letter before this Court is dated 4-3-1999; wherein letter regarding the order of the President has been mentioned. This letter. Is from C.D.A. And is not the order of President. The writ as such is not maintainable. In addition to that disputed matter was not regarding mal-administration, rather it was regarding the rights of the parties and the issue to be decided was, as to whether on the basis of lease agreement, petitioner was entitled to the allotment and whether the Capital Development Authority had authority to cancel the allotment under clause (20) of the said agreement. The issue was regarding rights of the parties and could not come within the ambit of maladministration. Since Wafaqi Mohtasib had the authority to adjudicate upon the matters regarding maladministration; therefore, order of the Wafaqi Mohtasib, deciding the rights of the parties in the instant case was without jurisdiction. Furthermore, no contract was executed and clause (20) of the impugned agreement provided that respondents had the authority to terminate the agreement, so order of termination was therefore in accordance with terms of agreement and legal. In addition to that petitioner was returned the amount, which he had received after about thirteen years. Petitioner had approached Wafaqi Mohtasib, which meant that for a long period, petitioner not only remained silent, rather accepted the order regarding termination of agreement.
7. The petitioner as such is not entitled to the relief claimed and the writ petition is accordingly dismissed.