1. ' JAVID IQBAL, J.---These two appeals namely Civil- Appeal No,31-K of 1987 and Civil Appeal No,32-K of 1987 arise out of the same judgment of the High Court of Sind Sukkur Bench dated 6 February, 1988. These are therefore being taken up together.
2. ' The background is that the appellants in both the appeals had challenged the grant made by the Government of Sind of two separate parcels of land in Pathan Colony Sukkur measuring 2000 Sq. Ft.
3. And 5000 Sq. Ft. Respectively to Muhammad Paryal respondent in Civil Appeal No,31-K of 1987 and Dr. Mohammad Ashfaq Paracha respondent in Civil Appeal No,32-K of 1987. The contention of the appellants was that the disputed parcels of land allotted to the aforesaid respondents in both the above appeals were amenity plots reserved for children's park and as such they could not be granted by the Government of Sind for residential purpose and for the construction of a medical clinic. Their case further was that the grant of the parcels of the said land in favour of the aforesaid respondents was violative of the statement of conditions for the grant of State land, dated 12 May, 1975 issued under section 10 (2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912.
4. ' The orders of grant in favour of the aforesaid two respondents are dated 16 November 1982 and 25 September, 1984 whereunder two parcels of land were leased out to the respondents by the Government of Sind (Land Utilization Department) with the approval of the Governor and MLA Zone 'C'. The case of the appellants was that one of these parcels of land was allotted in the year 1969 by the then Deputy Commissioner Sukkur in favour of one Mst. Moina Agha for residential purpose but on the representation of Agha Fakharuddin appellant in Civil Appeal No,31-K of 1987 it was cancelled by the then Commissioner and reserved for children's park. The record indicates that this Mst. Moina Agha had applied to the Deputy Commissioner for allotment of 7200 Sq. Ft. Of land out of Survey No,626 which was granted to her vide order dated 21 October, 1969. Thereafter, Agha Fakhruddin appellant appears to have made a representation against the said grant on 29 October, 1969 and prayed for stay of further action on the ground that "this plot will be more suitable as a recreation park for children and ladies of the locality as there is no such facility existing in this area". It is clear from the representation of Agha Fakhruddir appellant that according to him the plot had been given to Mst.,, Moina Agha as an act of favouritism and that it should have been disposed of by public auction. But then in his representation he had also made a suggestion for the utilization of this plot as a recreation park for children and ladies. Thus, it is evident that until 1969 the plot had neither been considered as an amenity plot nor had been reserved for children's park. The record further indicates that the allotment was cancelled from the name of Mst. Moina Agha and it was ordered that the plot be disposed of by public auction. This order was passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 7 November, 1969. However, Agha Fakhruddin appellant challenged the aforesaid order by way of appeal before the Additional Commissioner and the holding of public auction was stayed on 4 December, 1969. Subsequently the appeal was withdrawn by Agha Fakhruddin appellant on 31 December, 1969. It may be pointed out that the orders passed by the Additional Commissioner in this case did not indicate that the cancellation of allotment or for recalling of the order for public auction of the said plot were based on the reason that it was reserved for amenity purpose.
5. ' So far as the other plot is concerned the record indicates that in the year 1970 one Ghulam Muhammad Paracha father of Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq Paracha respondent in Civil Appeal No,32-K of 1987 applied to the Deputy Commissioner for the grant of an area of 7200 Sq. Ft. Out of the disputed survey number for the construction of a charitable hospital. But this grant was also opposed by the appellant in appeal and further proceedings were stayed by the then Additional Commissioner. It is evident from the record that the grant was applied for by Ghulam Muhammad Paracha for the construction of charitable Zanana hospital, but when the Additional Commissioner stayed further proceedings on the appeal of the appellant, the Deputy Commissioner visited the site on 10 February, 1975 and taking into consideration that the Additional Commissioner had granted stay order he observed that the plot may be used as children's park and may not be allotted for private purpose.
6. ' In respect of both the plots the perusal of the orders makes it clear that the plots in question were not reserved for making children's park as they did not create any such impression. At the most it can be said that there were suggestions or recommendations to use same as such. But there is nothing on the record to show that such suggestions or recommendations were ever accepted by the Provincial Government or any other authority in this behalf. It may further be added that even the Sukkur Municipal Corporation had raised no objection when the cases of the grant of these plots to the aforesaid respondents were forwarded for consideration to the Provincial Government and thereafter orders were made in favour of the respondents by the Government of Sind with the approval of Governor/MLA Zone 'C'.
7. ' Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued before us that these plots had been reserved for amenity purpose but he did not succeed in establishing the same from the evidence on record. In fact there is no material on the record to indicate that the plots in dispute were ever reserved or utilized for the purpose of children's park. These arguments had also been raised before the Sind High Court but had rightly been rejected.
8. ' It was next argued by the learned counsel for the appellants before us that the Sind Government had acted in violation of the statement of conditions, dated 12 May, 1975 in ranting the plots to the two respondents. His argument was to the effect that the statement of conditions dated 12 May, 1975 had been issued under section 10 of the Colony Act and that the Provincial Government was bound to make the grants only in accordance with the statement of conditions. But this argument of the learned counsel is also without any force. Under section 10 of the Colony Act the Government was competent to dispose of the State land to such persons as it thought fit and the position is the same under the statement of conditions dated 12 May 1975. This argument was likewise properly attended to by the learned High Court which correctly arrived at the conclusion that the statement of conditions issued under section 10 (2) of the Colony Act did not in any manner fetter the discretion of the Provincial Government to allot the State land to such lessees whom it considers fit.
9. It is evident that under paras 6 to 13 of the statement of conditions dated 12 May, 1975 the Government has the power to grant parcels of State land for residential purposes either by negotiation or by auction.
10. ' Similarly under para 18 Government may lease out land on concessional rates or free of charge to hospitals, educational institutions etc. Or for other religious and charitable purposes. One of these plots in the instant case was granted by the Provincial Government to the respondents for the purpose of constructing a hospital and the use of the same for any other purpose was prohibited under the terms of allotment.
11. ' Learned counsel also raised before us an argument to the' effect that the grant of the parcels of land to the respondents had offended against the provisions of MLOs 34,60 and 89. These provisions C would only be attracted if the plots in question were amenity plots or reserved for such purpose but when factually the position is not so then obviously these provisions would not be attracted to the present case.
12. ' There is yet another aspect of the case which was examined by us and that was as to what was the locus standi of the appellants to challenge the transfer in favour of the aforesaid respondents when they had neither any personal interest in the property nor were applicants for the allotment.
13. The appellants claimed to be neighbours and that the right asserted by them was in the nature of a right which they enjoyed with all the other citizens of Sukkur. In other words they had claimed that they were acting pro-bono-publico, but even so their claim may have been justified if the plots in dispute were amenity plots reserved for children's park. Since this was not so the Provincial Government was entitled to dispose them of either for residential purpose or commercial purpose.
14. The appellants were not applicants for these plots nor had they been made such a grant, hence they had no interest in the same and therefore had no locus standi in the matter to challenge the allotment in favour of the respondents.
15. ' In the light of the above discussion we are of the considered view that the impugned judgment dated 6 February, 1986 of the High Court of Sind, Sukkur Bench calls for no interference. In that view of the matter both the appeals are dismissed with costs.