' The petitioner was allotted a plot of land No,1162 in Block No,16 measuring 120 Sq.Yds. On 16th June,1961/3rd July,1961 by the respondent. The petitioner paid Rs,360 in respect of the occupancy value and thereafter applied for possession of the said plot on 14th October, 1965. He again made a request to respondent for the possession of the said plot on 14th February,1975. The respondent in reply stated that the plot has been cancelled from name of petitioner on 11th April, 1966 by the Governing Body of the K.D.A. But in another letter on 14th November,1975 the petitioner was informed by K.D.A. That the plot was cancelled because his name had not been mentioned in the ballot.
2. A counter-affidavit filed on behalf of the K.D.A.Shows that the plot was cancelled on 11th Apri1,1966 under order of the Governing Body. This is stated in para. 5 of the affidavit where the Allotment Order issued to the petitioner is admitted. However, in para. 13 of the same affidavit a strange statement has been made by K.D.A. That the plot in question was allotted to one Abdul Jaleel Siddiqui on 7th September,1961 and a lease of the plot was also executed and registered in favour of the said Abdul Jaleel Siddiqui on 21st Apri1,1977 and that the said lessee has thereafter disposed of the said plot through a registered sale-deed in favour of one Aminuddin son of Shamsuddin whose name is mutated in the records on 22nd January,1977.
3. This being the position there is no doubt in our mind that the petitioner has been unfairly treated by the K.D.A. And the plot has been cancelled from his name without any reason and without giving him any show-cause notice. However, the difficulty is that in spite of the fact that action of the K.D.A. In cancelling the plot was illegal, we cannot grant any relief to the petitioner in respect of the said plot in view of the fact that the equities in favour of other two persons had interfered inasmuch as one Mr.Abdul Jaleel Siddiqui and other.Aminuddin had stepped in as allottees and transferee of the said plot who are not even parties in this petition. And hence the plot cannot be ordered to be restored to the petitioner as in such a case the rights of these two transferee and allottees, who may have been quite innocent persons; would be adversely effected without any notice to them, these persons having not been impleaded as party in this petition.
4. The counter-affidavit of the respondent was filed on 27th January,1976 and was received by the counsel for the petitioner, but there is no re-joinder to the said affidavit controverting the position taken in that counter-affidavit. Mr.Muhammad Shibli Advocate has submitted that since the counter-affidavit had been filed after 7 years of the filing of this petition, therefore, it was not possible for the petitioner to controvert the same. Whatever may be the reason, but the fact is that rights of two persons who are not a party to this petition are involved and therefore, the petitioner cannot be allowed any relief in respect of the disputed plot.
' We must however, make it clear that the action of the K.D.A.In cancelling the plot of the petitioner was completely uncalled for and without any notice to him and was, therefore, illegal. It is, therefore, appropriate that the K.D.A. Should compensate the petitioner by giving him some other plot preferably in the same scheme, if it be possible, or in another scheme nearabout. The petition is disposed of in the above terms.