' This writ petition calls in question the cancellation of allotment of Plot No, 14, Street No, 61, Shalimar-6, Islamabad, by letter No, CDA/EMS-L (61) 14/63, dated 25-1-1981.
2. The facts relevant for the disposal of this writ petition are that the plot, in dispute, was originally allotted in February, 1963 to one Mrs. Mahjabeen Wazirzada. Subsequently it was transferred in favour of the petitioner on 22-8-1975, by the Capital Development Authority (hereinafter called as "the Authority") on the same terms and conditions on which it was allotted to the original allottee. It is an admitted fact that under the terms and conditions of the agreement for allotment (Annexure 'R. 2') the allottee was required to construct the house within one year from the date of allotment, which expired on 21-8-1976. Notwithstanding this, further extensions were granted from time to time and finally the Authority took a policy decision that no extension shall be granted after 31-12-1980. It may be pointed out that in consequence of a family dispute in the family of the petitioner, some settlement was arrived at for the distribution of property and other assets. Consequently, the plot, in dispute, was transferred by way of family settlement to Messrs Shaukat, Afzal and others (Messrs Afzal Stores Ltd.). The intending transferees approached the Authority for regularization of the transfer of the plot, in dispute, in their favour. They were informed by the Authority that their application cannot be considered unless it was properly documented and requisite fee was deposited. They were further informed that the final extension given to the petitioner was going to expire on 31-124980, after which the allotment would be cancelled and the plot resumed.
Thereafter, certain correspondence was exchanged between the intending transferees and the Authority, which is not relevant in the context of the real controversy involved in this writ petition.
Suffice it to say that by letter dated 14th of June, 1980 (Annexure 'R. 3') the Estate Management Officer of the Authority informed the petitioner that the Authority would be constrained to cancel the allotment of the plot, in dispute, forfeit the price and resume possession thereof without any further reference if the building was not completed before 31-12-1980. This letter reads thus :- "CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (ESTATE MANAGMENT)
' No, CDA/EM-S-6(61) 14/63 Islamabad 14th June, 1980 ' To Mr. Riaz Ahmad, 148-F/2, PECHS Karacbi-29.
' Subject.-Construction of House on Plot No, 14, Street No, 61, Sector Shalimar-6, Islamabad.
' Dear Sir, ' It has been observed that you have not started/completed the construction on your plot so far, whereas under the terms of allotment you were required to complete the house by 21-8-1976.
Keeping in view the shortage of Cement etc. The Authority had allowed you final extension in construction of building upto 31-12-1980. The position of building material has since ceased.
Y' ou are, therefore, advised to schedule the programme of construction on your plot in such a way that the same is completed before 31-12-1980, failing which the Authority would be constrained to cancel the allotment of said plot, 10% of the price forfeited and the possession resumed without any further reference. Yours faithfully (Sd.)
(QINAIT ALI)
Estate Management Officer, Tele: 26909."
OOOOOO
3. The petitioners admittedly failed to complete the construction by 31-12-1980. Consequently, the Estate Management Officer, by letter dated 25-1-1981, cancelled the allotment of the plot, in dispute. The body of the said letter reads thus :- "I am directed to inform you that plot No, 14, Street No, 61, in Sector Shalimar-6, was allotted on 27- 2-1963. The construction of building was required to be completed latest by 31-12-1980. Since you have failed to abide by the terms and conditions of allotment the Authority has decided to cancel the allotment of the above plot from your name with immediate effect. You are, however, advised to submit a pre-dated receipt duly signed/ stamped as per enclosed draft enabling this office to refund the amount due under the prevailing rules."
4. Mr. Shahenshah Hussain respectfully submits that the impugned order of cancellation of allotment was made without issuing any show-cause notice to the petitioners. Mr. A. G. Chaudhry, learned counsel for the respondent, has frankly conceded that in view of the well-settled rule of natural justice the petitioner was entitled to a show-cause notice notwithstanding the provisions of clause 15 of the terms and conditions of allotment (Annexure 'R. 2'), which reads thus :- "In case of breach of any of the terms and conditions of this agreement on the part of the Purchaser, the Authority shall, without prejudice to any other remedy, have the right to cancel the allotment of the said plot, forfeit 10% of the price and enter upon the said plot to take possession of the same and of any house, building construction or other material found thereon without any liability to pay any compensation therefor."
' He, however, took up the plea that the requirement of natural justice was fully met as show-cause notice dated 14th of June, 1980 (Annexure 'R. 3') was duly served on the petitioner before passing the impugned order.
5. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties.
In terms of clause 15 of the aforesaid agreement, the Authority was fully competent to cancel the allotment on the breach of any of the terms and conditions of the agreement. This power, however, cannot be exercised in violation of the rule of natural justice. The petitioner was, therefore, entitled to a reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action. The contention of Mr. A.
G. Chaudhry thaUetter dated 14th of June, 1980 (Annexure 'R. 3'), reproduced above, was in the nature of a show-cause notice cannot be sustained. The final extension in constructing the building admittedly expired on 31-111980, and therefore, the show-cause notice could only have been issue I subsequent to the said date and not in anticipation thereof. In the instant case the Estate Management Officer of the Authority by letter dated 14th of June, 1980, pre-judged the issue of cancellation in anticipation of the alleged breach of condition of constructing the house before the target date. The tenor of the letter, in question, would show that the petitioner was merely warned to construct the building before the target date, failing which he was threatened with the cancellation of the allotment. The mere fact that it was clearly stated in the letter, in question, that the possession would be resumed and price forfeited after cancellation of the plot, in case, the construction was not completed before 31-12-1980 without any further reference, would not have the effect of providing a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to show cause against the proposed cancellation. The Authority admittedly issued no show-cause notice after 31-12-1980 to the petitioner, as to why his allotment be not cancelled for any breach of the terms and conditions of the agreement. 1, therefore, hold that the cancellation of the allotment, in dispute, is violative of the principle of natural justice and, therefore, on this score alone the impugned cancellation of the allotment is liabie to be struck down. It is, therefore, not necessary to examine the other points raised in the writ petition. In view of the above, impugned letter dated 25-1-1981, is declared as without lawful authority and of no legal effect. This order shall, however, not debar the Authority to take any action afresh against the petitioner, after providing him an adequate opportunity of showing cause against the proposed action in accordance with law, for the alleged breach of any of the terms and conditions of the allotment. With these observations the writ petition is accepted, with no order as to costs.