1. ' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---A writ petition filed by the appellant before us, Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar, to challenge the allotment of the plot in dispute to Mst. Showahid Begum has been dismissed by the High Court as being 'not maintainable'. He has now appealed with leave of the Court.
2. ' In the writ petition filed by the present appellant it was alleged that plot in question had been allotted by the Chairman of the Municipal Committee alone but he had no power to allot or regularise a marked plot. A certified copy of the allotment order, which was attached with the writ petition, shows that the Chairman had allotted plot No,134 Khambal Sector New Mirpur Town to Mst.
3. Showahid Begum daughter of Noor Alam. It was also averred in the petition that Mst. Showahid Begum was a married lady and her husband Muhammad Akram had already been allotted a plot in the town. It was also alleged that different plots also stood allotted to her father and brother.
4. Copies of the provisional allotment orders in favour of her father, Noor Alam, and her brother, Muhammad Yasin, were attached with the writ petition. It was also submitted that allotment in favour of Mst. Showahid Begum had been made secretly. So far as the maintainability of the writ petition was concerned it would be useful to reproduce the contents of para. 1 of the writ petition:- "1. That the petitioner is displaced person, resident of Mirpur and is a State Subject, has applied for the allotment of ten Marlas plot in Khambal Sector, New Mirpur, Azad Kashmir and has got no other allotment in Mirpur or in any other hamlets."
5. ' It was claimed in para. 4 of the petition that the petitioner was an aggrieved person. In the written statement filed by Mst. Showahid Begum it was admitted that allotments had been made in favour of her husband, father and brother. It was contended that writ petition had been filed belatedly, although the factum of allotment was known to Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar. It was also contended that the petitioner was not an aggrieved person. In the written statement filed by the respondents it remained undenied that the plot was secretly allotted.
6. ' In the judgment under appeal it was held by the High Court that an application for the allotment was filed by Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar on 30th of May 1979 through one Lal Din as attorney. In that application he was shown to be of 16 years of age and as living with his father who was a Mangla Dam affected person. The application was for a plot in Khambal Sector, not for any particular plot.
7. It was observed by the learned Judge in the High Court that the plot in dispute stood allotted to another person till 1988 when its previous allottee was given another plot in lieu of disputed plot and the plot in dispute became available for allotment. It was noted that Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar did not file fresh application for allotment of the plot in dispute or any other plot in Khambal Sector with the result that there was no application on behalf of Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar when the plot in dispute was allotted to Mst. Showahid Begum. Therefore, the learned Judge formed the view that he was not an aggrieved person and could not be allowed to challenge the allotment. No finding was recorded on the question of laches.
8. ' Ch. Muhammad Taj, in support of the appeal, contended that the High Court fell in error when it held that the application filed by the appellant had been rejected. He submitted that in the certified copy filed with writ petition by the present appellant the word "rejected" is inscribed, but it is not proved that this word was written by any person who was competent to reject the application. He contended that no single person was competent to reject an application for allotment. We are of the view that this question need not be resolved because, as contended by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Inqalabi, the learned counsel for Mst. Showahid Begum, the application is addressed to the Mirpur Development Authority. In the year 1979 when this application was moved power of allotment was vested only in the Mirpur Development Authority and it was subsequently that New Mirpur Town was demarcated into two parts and allotment work in one part was handed over to Municipal Authorities and not the Development Authority with whom appellant's application had been filed in 1979. The Municipal Committee could not consider the application even if it had not been rejected. Consequently, it makes no difference whether this application had been rejected or not. We have reproduced para. 1 above from the writ petition. The appellant did not claim in his petition that the application was still pending. It appears that he mentioned the factum of his filing the application in connection with his entitlement to seek allotment. We note that the application is not in respect of the plot in question but is a general application for allotment of a plot in Khambal Sector.
9. ' The learned counsel for the appellant, Ch. Muhammad Taj, vehemently contended that the High Court fell in error in holding that the appellant was not an aggrieved person. He relied on a judgment of this Court in case titled Maqsood Hussain v. Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur (1992 CLC 2203). On the other hand Mr. Muhammad Riaz Inqalabi vehemently contended that there was no application pending with the concerned authorities for allotment of any plot on behalf of the appellant and merely because an application had been filed by him with the Mirpur Development Authority as far back as in the year 1979 for the allotment of a plot in Khambal Sector did not entitle him to challenge the allotment in favour of Mst. Showahid Begum.
10. ' In our view the fact that there was no application on behalf of the present appellant pending with the concerned authority does not lead to the conclusion that he was not aggrieved person. It is a mandatory requirement of Mirpur Municipal Committee (Regulations for Development and Disposal of Plots/Estates), 1985 that applications be invited from general public. If a plot is secretly allotted and applications are not invited a person who is desirous of seeking an allotment cannot be expected to file an application for allotment.
11. ' In the writ petition it was alleged that the plot in dispute was allotted secretly and was not specifically denied in the two written statements filed in the case. The respondents have not claimed that applications were invited from the general public before making the allotment in favour of Mst. Showahid Begum. Thus, the mandatory provision of Regulations mentioned above was violated. From the record it is clear that petitioner is a son of Mangla Dam displaced person, is resident of New Mirpur Town and is also a State Subject. Thus, he falls in three different categories of the persons who are qualified for allotment of plots in New Mirpur Town. He filed an application for allotment as far back as in 1979 when he was only M years old. When he filed the writ petition he was about 28 years old but has not been allotted a plot. The judgment in Maqsood Hussain's case applies to these facts and must be followed. The reliance of the learned counsel for the appellant on the following portion of Maqsood Hussain's case, mentioned above, is well-placed:- "Next, it has been half-heartedly contended by the learned counsel for respondent No,4 that the appellant is not an 'aggrieved person' because the plot was allotted to respondent No,4 in the year 1987,when the appellant had not yet submitted any application for the allotment of the plot in dispute. Assuming for the sake of argument that the order passed in September, 1987 would be regard to be a final order in the matter, the fact remains that plot in question was available for allotment to any deserving person from public-at-large. Thus, if the order of Chairman dated 28- 9-1987 was violative of the law and without jurisdiction, that would not debar the appellant from seeking the allotment of the plot in question. It is not disputed that the appellant falls within one of categories which have been declared entitled to allotment of plots in Mirpur Town. It is true that no right in the strict juristic sense vested in him, but clearly the appellant is a person who has personal interest that the respondents should not perform their legal duties in a manner not provided by law because if the plot in question becomes available for allotment to a deserving person it is certainly an advantage or benefit which would accrue to the appellant. If any authority is needed on this point we may refer to Mian Fazal Din v. Lahore Improvement Trust, Lahore (PLD 1969 SC 223) and particularly the following passages from the judgment of Hamoodur Rehman, who spoke for the Court in that case:- ' The right considered sufficient for maintaining a proceedings in writ jurisdiction is not necessarily a right in the strict juristic sense but it is enough if the applicant discloses that he had a personal interest in the performance of the legal duty which if not performed or performed in manner not permitted by law would result in the loss of some personal benefit or advantage or the curtailment of a privilege or liberty or franchise.
12. ' A corporation entrusted with the task of formulating town improvement schemes had appropriated a particular site for the use of the public as a market place and this induced one M to purchase a piece of land just opposite to the proposed market place in the hope to opening a shop there. Subsequently, however, the scheme was altered and M was deprived of the facility he had hoped for. The Supreme Court held that the deprivation of such a facility conferred a sufficiently valuable right to enable him to maintain a writ petition."
13. ' Keeping these facts in view Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar had the locus standi to file the writ petition. This point also stands directly concluded by another judgment of this Court in Raja Muhammad Asif v.
14. Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur (Civil Appeal No, 78 of 1991), in which it was held:- ".... Even if we assume that he had not filed an application that would not be an adverse factor because of the fact that, as claimed, the relevant authority had not invited applications while it is specifically laid down in the Regulation No,7 that whenever the plots/farms are to be disposed of through allotment a notice giving sufficient particulars of plot/farm inviting application within a specified period shall be issued by the committee, ....' For the time being there is nothing on the record to contradict this assertion which, as already noted, is supported by an affidavit. If it is true that the applications were not invited then any person who falls within the category to whom a plot can be allotted in the Mirpur Town can challenge an allotment made without inviting applications, by filing a writ petition. This proposition stands concluded by a judgment of this Court in the titled "Maqsood Hussain v. Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur (Civil Appeal No,9 of 1992, decided on 30-5-1992 (1992 CLC 2203).
15. ' So far as the merits of the case are concerned it is clear that the Chairman of the Committee is not competent to make the allotment of a plot. Apart from that Mst. Showahid Begum is not head of an independent family. She is a member of her husband's family who admittedly holds an allotment of a plot in Mirpur Town. Thus, the order of allotment in favour of Mst. Showahid Begum is illegal.
16. ' The only question which now remains to be seen is the alleged laches. The impugned order of allotment was passed on 27-6-1990 while the writ petition was filed on 23-5-1991. Since the appellant was not a party in the proceedings of allotment the starting point of delay would commence from the date of knowledge. It was averred in the writ petition that the appellant came to know about the factum of allotment "few days ago when Mst. Showahid Begum tried to take possession through her relatives". An affidavit was duly filed in support of the averment. This fact was denied in the written statement filed by the respondents. It was seated in reply to the relevant averment that the plot in dispute was in possession of the answering respondent and that Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar knew the fact of allotment "since long". An affidavit sworn by Muhammad Yasin, attorney of Mst. Showahid Begum, was also filed in support of this averment. There is nothing on the file to show as to how the department came to know that Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar in fact acquired knowledge of the allotment "since long". "Since long" is a vague term and even if it is accepted as true it does not necessarily mean that Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar's knowledge extended to such a time which would amount to laches. It is also to be noted that no material charge has been brought about during the intervening period. The objection has no force and is overruled.
17. ' In view of the foregoing analysis we accept the appeal, set aside the order of the High Court and order the acceptance of the writ petition filed by Hafiz Pervaiz Akhtar. Consequently the plot in dispute shall stand cancelled from the name of Mst. Showahid Begum and shall go to the general pool and may be allotted in accordance with law.