ORDERSARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN.CJ.- Through this writ petition, the order of the President/Chief Executive of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government dated 18.1.1983, whereby plot No.7 in Sector E-3, Part II, in Mirpur- Town was allotted in the name of Haji Muhammad Malik, respondent No.3, has been called in question.
2. The case of the petitioner is that she had applied for the allotment of plot No.7 in Sector E-3 part II and had also deposited Rs.3180/- towards its cost and that she is also in possession of it. It is the further case of the petitioner that the President/Chief Executive of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government allotted the aforesaid plot to respondent No.3 from his special quota on 18.1.1983 without hearing the petitioner and in contravention of the rules pertaining to the allotment of plots in new Mirpur Town. The petitioner has also alleged that the aforesaid respondent already had the allotment of a plot in his name and could not be allotted the plot in question in preference to the pettitioner who is a Mangla Dam affected person. The petitioner has also alleged that the respondents No. 3 had sold this plot to respondent No.4 who, in turn, has sold it to Alif, deceased respondent, whose legal representatives are respondent No.6 to 11.
3. I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the respondent No.3 being already an allottee of a plot, had no entitlement to another plot in Mirpur town and, as such, the allotment impugned in this writ petition has been made in violation of the relelvant rules. He has further contended that the petitioner had applied for allotment of the plot in dispute and was in its possession when the same was allotted to respondent and, as such, it was necessary to provide her an opportunity of being heard before passing the impugned order but this was not done and, as such, the impugned order is unlawful.
4. The Counsel for the rrespondents, on the other hand, has contended that the allotment impugned in the writ petition has been made by the President/Chief Executive from his own special quota of plots reserved for the purpose under the relevant law and, as such, the petitioner is naot a person aggrieved by the impugned order. It is further contended by him that there are no rules or regulations governing the allotment of plots by the President/Chief Executive from his special quota and the discretion of allotment of plot to anybody from the said quota squarely rests with the President/Chief Executive. It is further contended by him that although the petitioner had applied for allotment of the plot in question in the year 1972 but later on she had waived her right to its allotment as she had made many other applications thereafter for allotment of plots in other sectors of Mirpur town and that the writ petition suffers from laches as it has been filed after the lapse of more than 2-1/2 years from the date of the passing of the impugned order.
5. I have given my due consideration to the above contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. It is undisputed that the plot in question was allotted by the President/ Chief Executive to the respondent No.3 from his special quota of plots reserved for this purpose under the relevant law. The petitioner, in para 6 of her writ petition, has herself alleged that the President/Chief Execurtive had allotted the plot to the respondent No. 3 from his special quota.. The Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any rules governing the allotment of plots from the aforesaid quota nor I have myself been able to lay my hands on any such rules. It is thus left to the sole discretion of the President/Cheif Executive to allot from his special quota any plot to any person irrespective of his entitlement to allotment of plot under the law applicable to allotments of plot by the M.D A. Under the rules. There is no guide-line laid down for such an allotment. The powers of the President/ Chief Executive in this respect are unrestricted and unlimited and, as such, allotment of the plot in question in the name of respondent No.3 cannot be held to be violative of any law or rules governing the allotment of plots in Mirpur town with the result the impugned allotment has not adversely affected any right of the petitioner vested in her under law. In this view of the matter, she cannot make grievance of the impugned allotment as she is not a person aggrieved by it. The mere fact that the petitioner had applied, for the allotment of this plot, to the Mirpur Development Authority, as back as in 1973 does not make the impugned order illegal or without lawful authority. The petitioner after applying for the allotment of the said plot appears to have abandoned her intention to get the allotment of it as she had made subsequent applications to the Mirpur Development Authority for allotment of plots in other sectors. Her above conduct amounts to waiving of her right to the allotment of the plot in question even if she had any. There is nothing on the record to show that the disputed plot was ever advertised by the Mirpur Development Authority for allotment and the petitioner had applied for its allotment in response to such an advertisement. Similarly, it was not incumbent under law as well as the principle of natural justice for the President/Chief Executive to hear the petitioner before making the allotment of the plot in question, to respondent No.3.
6. For the foregoing reasons, I find no merits in this writ petition which is dismissed with no order as to costs.