' In this Constitutional petition the legality of allotment of plot in dispute No,55-3/A-II, Township Scheme, Lahore in favour of respondent No,5 vide letter dated 27-8-1990 has been called in question.
2. Plot bearing No,55-3/A-II, Township Scheme, Lahore was allotted to the petitioner on 31-5-1977 from the quota reserved for Government Officers. This allotment was made by the Housing & Physical Planning, Government of Punjab. The petitioner deposited the price of the plot. The possession of the plot was delivered to the petitioner on 11-3-1978. The petitioner submitted a plan for construction of house which was sanctioned by the concerned authorities. The case of the petitioner is that thereafter he went abroad and returned to Pakistan in 1987. After coming back to Pakistan he deposited the development charges and other dues through bank challans issued by the concerned authorities, copies of which have been placed on the record as G/1 and G/2. The petitioner made an application for extension of the period fixed for completion of the construction of the building over the plot through application dated 11-11-1987 which was diarised at No,3267.
3. In the year 1990 when the petitioner wanted to raise construction he was informed that the plot had been allotted to respondent No,5 in compliance with the order of Minister for Housing and Physical Planning. On 15-12-1990 the petitioner moved an application before the. Director Housing and Physical Planning who summoned the record of the plot from the Deputy Director. No response was made as the record was not available with the said officer.
4. The petitioner has challenged the order of allotment of plot passed in favour of respondent No,5 vide letter dated 27-8-1990. In the written statement filed by respondents Nos.1 to 4 the averment as contained in para.2 of the writ petition regarding allotment of the plot in favour of petitioner was admitted as correct. It was, however, added that on the agreement executed between the petitioner and the Department as well as on the file cover it was written that the allotment was cancelled on 15-12-1985 but neither the cancellation order nor the allotment order was in the file.
The averments in para.3 of the writ petition that the petitioner made the requisite payments on which the agreement was executed and the possession delivered to the petitioner vide possession slip dated 11-3-1978 have been admitted in the written statement. The plea of the petitioner as raised in para. 4 of the writ petition that after formal delivery of possession of the plot he got approved building plan from the authority concerned in 1978 has also been admitted as correct in the written statement. In the written statement the receipts regarding payment of 1/4237 dated 30- 6-1977 and 18/1625 dated 2-1-1978 have been verified and regarding the photo copies of the other bank challans evidencing payment of other charges it has been stated in the written statement that the petitioner should produce the originals before the authorities for verification. It may, however, be observed that the authenticity of the said bank challans had not been even remotely disputed. The plea of the petitioner that he remained out of country for 12 years has been denied for want of knowledge. It has been added in the written statement that as per possession slip building period had expired in December 1982. The allegation of the petitioner that the relevant file was not available has also been admitted in the written statement. It has also been admitted in the written statement that the plot in dispute was allotted to respondent No,5 on the order of Minister for Housing as an alternate plot, in pursuance of which possession of the plot was delivered to respondent No,5 who submitted building plan for approval.
5. The case of respondent No,5 as highlighted by him in his written statement and attached documents is that on 2-3-1971 he made an application for allotment of plot in the Township Scheme. In 1972 Plot No,465/4-C-II was allotted to him. He made payment of dues in the year 1976 in respect of this plot. After that he made an application to the District Housing Officer Township Scheme, requesting that the said plot allotted to him was in undeveloped area, therefore, he be given any other plot in the alternative. On 10-11-1980 he was allotted plot No,71/1/A-II. There was some corruption case registered against D.H.O. The file of this plot was taken into custody by the Anti-Corruption Establishment. Respondent No,5 on 7-8-1990 moved an application before the Minister for Housing who passed an order for giving him alternative plot if his allotment was genuine. On this the concerned officer called report about plot in dispute and about availability of the file of the said plot. The Record Keeper made a report that he had checked and found that the file was not in his charge. The D.H.O. Passed an order for report regarding the position of the plot at site regarding its possession. On this a report was made that the plot was vacant at the site. On 26- 9-1990 an order was passed for allotment of this plot to respondent No,5 in lieu of plot allotted to him on 10-11-1980. It may be mentioned here that he was allotted Plot No, 71/1/A-II on this date. The possession of the plot in dispute in pursuance of the said allotment order was delivered to respondent No, 5 on 25-9-1990. On 4-11-1990 building plan was sanctioned in his favour and he claims that he has spent an amount of Rs,50,000 for raising four-walls and construction of a room.
6. It is clear from the averments made in the writ petition and in the written statements filed by respondents Nos.1 to 4 and respondent No,5 that the allotment of plot in dispute in the name of the petitioner, the delivery of its possession to him, deposit by him of the price and execution of agreement in his favour and sanction of building plan have been admitted and there is no dispute about their correctness. It has also been admitted by respondents Nos.1 to 4 that there is no order available on the file passed by the competent authority for cancellation of allotment of plot from the name of the petitioner. There is only a writing on the agreement and the cover of the file that the said allotment was cancelled on 5-12-1985. The original file has .Been 'produced in Court by Mr. Nawab Khan Bajwa, Superintendent, Office of the Deputy Director (A&H.M), Kot Lakhpat Housing Project, Township Scheme, Lahore. I have examined the same. The said writing that the allotment of the plot was cancelled on 15-12-1985 is not supported by signatures or initials of any person or officers of the department. There is no mention as to which officer passed order for cancellation of the plot. It is also manifest from the file that before allotment of plot in dispute in favour of respondent No,5 no inquiry was made as to whether the allotment of the same had already been made in favour of any other person. The order for allotment of this plot to respondent No,5 was passed mechanically merely because it was found to be vacant.
7. Article 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, guarantees that no person shall be deprived of his property except in accordance with law. After the petitioner had deposited the price of the plot after allotment of the same in his name, possession delivered and building plan sanctioned, he became vested with proprietary rights of the plot and it was his property. He could not be deprived of the said property except in accordance with law. Rules of natural justice of granting an opportunity of hearing before any order prejudicial to the rights of any person in the property is passed is the least requirement of every law. Unless a competent authority had passed an order after hearing the petitioner for cancellation of plot in accordance with the terms and conditions on which plot was allotted to him and the law applicable to this allotment, the plot could not be allotted to any other person. The writing on the agreement and the cover file without the support of signatures or initials by any person does not and could not have been construed to be an order passed by the competent authority for cancellation of plot from the name of the petitioner. Learned counsel for respondent No,5 and respondents Nos.1 to 4 in this situation could not defend the order of allotment of the plot passed in favour of respondent No,5. Learned counsel for respondent No,5, however, argued that the said respondent has spent an amount of Rs,50,000 for no default of his own as the department while making allotment in his favour did not inform him that the plot was not available. Learned counsel for the.Petitioner made an offer that the petitioner was ready to pay the said amount of Rs,50,000 to respondent No,5 on compassionate grounds and take the construction raised by respondent No,5. It is a matter between the petitioner and respondent No,5 which may be settled by them mutually.
8. For the foregoing reasons the allotment of plot in dispute in favour of respondent No,5 vide letter dated 27-8-1990 is hereby declared to have been made without lawful authority and of no legal effect and quashed. The writ petition is accepted. In the result the petitioner continues to be the allottee/owner of the plot and respondents Nos.1 to 4 and officials working under them are directed to restore the petitioner to his original status as lawful allottee/owner and possession of the plot as he was deprived of the same by the act of the said respondents when the possession of it was delivered to respondent No,5. There will be no order as to costs.