This constitutional petition is directed against order dated 07.03.2018, whereby Respondent No. 2 proceeded to dismiss the representation of the petitioners.
2. The precise grievance of the petitioners is that Respondent No. 4 - M/s. Eden Housing Developers allegedly allotted plots to the petitioners, in respect whereof all payable amounts were paid but still Developer failed to deliver possession and issue transfer letters, conferring proprietary rights therein. Case of the petitioners is against Lahore Development Authority (Authority), asserting that requisite approval for development was accorded by the Authority, and same, being the regulator, is obligated to take action against the developer, for being defaulted in performance of its obligations. Learned counsel referred to clause (e) of Rule 21 of the Punjab Private Housing Schemes and Land Sub-Division Rules 2010. It is expedient to reproduce said clause, for ease of reference, which reads as; "Notwithstanding anything in the contract, in case of delayed handing over of possession of the plot/property beyond the stipulated date, the developer shall be liable to pay an amount equivalent to two percent per month of the amount paid by the allotted".
3. Submissions are misconceived, when construed in the context of present facts. It is apparent from the perusal of the order impugned, that the issue, simplicitor, was not regarding delayed delivery of possession. In fact Respondent No. 4 alleged default on the part of the petitioners in making requisite payments, as per terms of the arrangement - Reference is made to ground (D) of the Order impugned.
4. Allocation letters are examined, which letters per se do not extend any vested right, but certainly extends a right to seek enforcement of the terms of allocation, subject to performance of terms and conditions. In exercise of powers under clause (e) of. Rule 21, Authority is not eligible to decide disputes of such nature - contractual defaults. Rule 21(e) applies to such cases where developer exclusively defaults or fails to discharge its obligations under the terms of the permissions granted by the Authority to the Developer.
5. In view of the facts and circumstances of this case, there is no occasion to exercise constitutional jurisdiction and to direct the Authority to adjudicate upon and determine contractual disputes inter se the petitioners and Respondent No. 4. Hence, no default of any enforceable obligation could be attributed to the Authority. Petitioners have the remedy available in law to resort to the Courts exercising penary jurisdiction. No illegality is found in the order impugned.
6. This petition is devoid of merits and same is, therefore, dismissed.