LAL JAN KHA TTAK, J. Petitioner through the instant petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has prayed to this court for issuance of a writ declaring the decision dated, 01.11.2014 of the BOG, Galiyat Development Authority , as illegal and unlawful whereby the status of his plot bearing No. 07 situated at Nathia Gali (hereinafter to be referred as the plot) has been converted from commercial into residential.
2. Brief facts of the case are that after purchasing the plot, which at that time was residential one, petitioner applied to the respondents for conversion of its status into commercial. His application was allowed and as a result the respondents vide order dated 28.01.2012 approved the desired conversion whereafter the petitioner used to deposit the prescribed commercial rates in respect of the plot. It is his case that after conversion of the status of the plot, he planed to construct a hotel there on and to this effect he approached the respondents for approval of the design after exhausting all the required formalities but all of a sudden, as per the petitioner , status of the plot was changed by the respondents from commercial into residential vide their decision dated 01.11.2014 which he has impugned through the petition in hand.
3. Arguments heard and record gone through.
4.Perusal of the case record would show that no doubt the respondents had earlier converted status of the plot from residential to commercial vide order dated 28.01.2012 whereafter for some time the petitioner used to pay commercial rates for the plot but as the very conversion of status of the plot through the order ibid was not supported by any law and rules, therefore, by taking the impugned decision subsequently , the respondents did not commit any wrong which could be declared as contrary to law .
5. In order to have protection under some order it must be shown by its beneficiary that same was issued by a person in the exercise of his authority vested in him under some law whereas in the case in hand the very source and authority of the order issued on 28.01.2012 was not there and same appeared to have been issued at the whims and capricious of someone having some important position at the helm of power . In such like situation, recipient of the order i.e. the petitioner cannot ask for its enjoyment and protection as allowing amenity of the plot into a commercial use was not based on any legal footing or mandate. Wisdom is derived from a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan reported in 1999 SCMR 2883 .
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner referred to a judgment of this court delivered on 21.05.1999 in W.P. No. 161 of 1998 wherein conversion of status of a residential plot situated at Nathia Gali was allowed into commercial.
Elaborating his arguments, the learned counsel argued that the petitioner's case is fully at par with the one referred to above and, as such, the impugned decision of BOG be declared as null and void for its being discriminatory . Ibid contention of the learned counsel is of no help to the petitioner as in the referred case the desired conversion was allowed when a concession was given by the respondents in favour of the petitio ner of the referred writ petition which is not the case in hand. Be that as it may, the petitioner cannot ask for any relief on the basis of the referred judgment as it is well settled that if an order or judgment of a court is in contrave ntion of law on the subject then same has no binding ef fect.
7. Learned counsel for the petitioner further argued with vehemence that the respondents had allowed like conversions to other lessees of plots situated at Nathia Gali whereon hotels have been constructed and, as such, not only the petitioner is entitled to similar treatment but due to the construction of hotels in the area nearby the plot his privacy is being disturbed which fact cannot be overlooked while deciding this petition. We have considered ibid argument of the learned counsel but same did not appeal us firstly on the ground that the treatment given to the lessees of the other plots was not pursuant to any law rather in contravention to the prescribed rules, therefore, same cannot be cited as a precedent and secondly even if someone had constructed hotel in a residential area contrary to the prescribed rules then in such like situation it was the bounden duty of the petitioner or of the one from whom he has derived his title qua the plot to raise a voice against the illegal construction like late Ardeshir CowasJee had raised at Karachi and not to sit as a silent spectator waiting for time to use the illegal activity for his own end.
8. For what has been discussed above, this petition, being bereft of any merit, is hereby dismissed.