' This is a writ petition filed under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974 for cancellation of allotment of plot No. 16-E situate in Subseetor F-2, New Mirpur Town, passed on 15th July, 1981 by the Allotment of Land Committee of the Mirpur Development Authority and subsequent confirmation of the said plot made on 15th November, 1981, in favour of respondents Nos.1 and 2. The petitioner has alleged in his writ petition that the aforesaid orders are illegal, mala fide and passed without lawful authority qua his prior rights of the allotment as regards to the plot in question, which measures two Kanals having an area of 120' x 90', situate in Subsector C-2, New Mirpur Town.
2. The case of the petitioner Raj Muhammad is that he is a Mangle Dam affected person and the plot in dispute was allotted to him in the year 1973, vide Order Annexure 'S' to this petition. This allotment was made by the Allotment of Land Committee in his favour on 22nd April, 1973. He deposited Rs.5,400 on the 3rd of May, 1973 because the price of the land per Kanal was Rs.2,700 at that time. He has also alleged in the petition that possession of the aforesaid plot was also handed over to him as it would appear from Annexure E/1, to this petition.
3. The Government cancelled all 298 plots allotted to various persons and certain affected persons approached the High Court to invoke its Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction vested in it under section 44 of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act of 1974. The High Court dismissed all the writ petitions.
4. A new Committee headed by Ch.Sohbat Ali, bifurcated the plot No.16/E into two plots of one kanal each and allotted the same to the respondents on 13th of April, 1976. The case of the petitioner is that the Allotment of Land Committee did not issue any notice to the petitioner to show cause as to why the said plot should not be cancelled from his name. A writ petition was filed by the petitioner against the allotment of these two plots and the High Court ordered for the fresh allotment of these two plots.
5. These two plots were again allotted in favour of the respondents by the Revising Authority of the Mirpur Development Authority on 15th of November, 1979 and 24th of September, 1979. Another writ petition was filed by the petitioner, against the order of the Revision Authority of the Mirpur Development Authority and when this writ petition was pending before the High Court, the Government ordered for the cancellation of all the allotments made by the Committee headed by Ch. Sohbat All and by the Revising Authority of Mirpur Development Authority. In view of this order of the Government, that writ petition was also dismissed. New applications were invited by another Allotment Committee and a certain Notification was impeached by way of a writ petition by the petitioner, Raj Muhammad, which met the same fate on 16th of December, 1982.
6. The impugned orders were made on 15th of July, 1981 and on 15th of November, 1981 and the present writ petition was preferred by the petiticr.er on 7th of February, 1983.
7. A preliminary objection was raised by Ch.Muhammad Taj, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents that this writ petition was hardly hit by the doctrine of delay and laches. He referred to the following authorities in support of his contention:-
(1) 1963 SCMR 103--The copy of the impugned order was obtained on 12th October, 1965 and the writ petition was moved on 31st March, 1966. The High Court was held justified in declining to make an order under Article 98 of Constitution of 1962.
(2) 1968 SCMR 1274 (2)--Auction held in 1961 was challenged in 1964.
(3) 1970 SCMR 41. It was held that delay in filing a writ petition under Article 98 of 1962 Constitution was sufficient ground for denying relief.
(4) 1975 SCMR 217--This was a case under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan of 1973. This writ petition was also dismissed.
(5) PLD 1976 SC 410--Six months' delay was fatal to the writ petition.
(6) PLD 1977 Lah. 249--The writ petition was held liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
(7) 1980 CLC 446--There was six months' delay in this case and the writ petition was dismissed.
(8) 1980 CLC 446--Delay of one year and eight months (para. 17).
(9) 1980 CLC 105. Delay of one year and a half.
(10) 1980 CLC 687.
' The learned counsel for the non-petitioners also referred to the following unreported judgment:-
11. Writ petition titled "Muhammad Azad Khan v. A,K. Government and others" decided by Mr. Justice Sardar Said Muhammad Khan, Judge of High Court on 31st of February, 1981. In this case six months' delay proved fatal to the writ petition filed before this Court.
' The above-titled writ petition was taken up to the Supreme Court which was dismissed by Mr. Justice Raja Muhammad Khurshid Khan, C.J. and Mr. Justice Sher Zaman Chaudhry, J. It was observed by the learned Judges as under:- "So, therefore, the delay and neglect of about 9 months on the part of the appellant under the circumstances constitute laches. The principle can well be illustrated by reference to an observation made by Lord Comon in "Smith v. Klay" 1767 3 Bro cc 639 n at p.
640. While deciding that case the learned Judge observed:- "Nothing can call forth this Court into activity but conscience, good faith and reasonable diligence, where these are wanting, the Court is passive and does nothing".
' Deligence in the present case, we find, is hopelessly wanting. We, therefore, are in agreement with the learned counsel for the respondent that the appellant if aided in pursuit of her stale claim it would not only.. place the respondent in a position of disavantage but would also cause prejudice to about at least eight hundred allottees of the plots, many of whom might have by now constructed their houses as well as against whom the appellant neither claimed any relief nor have they been impleaded as party in the proceedings."
'I agree with the learned counsel for the respondents and hold that this writ is hit by laches and delay.
8. The petitioner has got some plots allotted in the name of his sons and he himself has also purchased the plot No.69 in Sector C/3 measuring 1 Kanal from one Raja Mumtaz Khan son of All Akbar respondent of Kalir, Tehsil Bhimber.
9. I have also perused the affidavit of P.L. Dutt, Advocate, wherein he (P.L. Dutt) has clearly stated that only one plot under discussion (No. 16/E/1 in Sector C/2 measuring 1 Kanal) is allotted to him and that there is no other plot allotted in his favour. Moreover, he has not even applied for any other plot.
10. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner Raj Muhammad but I am sorry that this writ is badly hit by the principle of laches.
11. I need not go into the other points alleged and argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner because he has got so many plots allotted to his family members. A writ can be issued to advance the cause of justice and not in the aid of injustice. This view finds support from the following authorities:-
(i) PLD 1976 Lah.
147.
(ii) 1980 CLC 446.
(iii) 1980 CLC 1346 and
(iv) 1980 CLC 99.
11-A, Writ jurisdiction is discretionary and constitutional juris- diction and, therefore, a person who has got sufficient property in his own name and in the name of his other family members, cannotD invoke it sucessfully. The Courts are not going to put a premium to the insatiable thirst of the persons who are hungry for plots or suffer from " ".
11-B. I am fortified in my opinion by section 5 of the Mirpur Development Authority Social Regulation of 1981 for the disposal of plots which reads as follows:-
5. QUALIFICATION AND. CONDITIONS OF ELIGIBILITY:
(i) The applicant should be a State Subject of A J & K or holding a Riyyat-nama for the Azad Jammu and Kashmir.
(ii) The applicant should be a major and Head of independent family.
(Ili) The applicant himself or any of the members of his family must not have previously obtained any allotment of any residential plot either in the Mirpur Town or in any Hamlet or have been allotted/transferred C or D type Bungalow or lower type quarter belonging to the Government or WAPDA.
(iv) An applicant who fulfils conditions (i) to (iii) above and in whose favour an allotment is decided upon by the Allotment Committee will pay the price fixed by the Authority for similar plots as prevailing at the time of allotment.
(v) An applicant who does not fulfil all or any of the conditions mentioned in sub-clauses (i) to (iii) above 'regarding eligibility but has actually constructed a house on the ,plot-;in question may also be considered by the Allotment Committee for allotment of that plot on the penalty price for encroachment as determined by the Authority. For this purpose a house shall mean a complete construction according to the Building and Zoning Regulations over at least 50% of the envisaged plinth area.
(vi) Where there are two or more applicants for one and the same plot, the Allotment Committee may take a suitable decision in favour of one or none of them on the merits of each case."
12. I would also like to make it clear that the High Court does not sit as an appellate Court in its Writ Jurisdiction. The following authorities lend support to this view:-
(i) PLD 1979 Lah.
1.
(ii) 1980 CLC 159.
13. High Court has only to gee whether Tribunal or Court acted without jurisdiction or in violation of law. High Court cannot embark upon a reappraisal of evidence and proceed as if it were hearing an appeal from a subordinate Court.
' Under these circumstances, I hereby dismiss this writ petition with costs.