' The petitioner, Dr. Muhammad Hassan is a Grade-19 officer and posted to perform his duties as Additional Medical Superintendent in Services Hospital, Lahore, while the contesting-respondent No,5, Asif Bajwa is a C.S.P. Officer. He is also in Grade-19. He is performing his duties as Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad. The petitioner moved an application for allotment of a house on the ground that despite the fact that he had been promoted to Grade-19, no official accommodation was given to him. On 20-3-1994, the Chief Minister, Punjab, approved the allotment of House No,4/A, GOR-II, Bahawalpur House, Lahore, in favour of the petitioner vide Annexure 'D'. In compliance with the order, a regular allotment order was issued to the petitioner on 2-4-1994 vide Annexure 'A'. It may be noted that at one point of time, the said house was allotted to respondent No,5. On 7-4-1994 a notice was issued to respondent No,5 to hand over the vacant possession of the House No,4/A, GOR-II, Lahore, to the new allottee. Nevertheless' , respondent No,5 did not vacate the house for no valid reasons. In such a situation, ejectment proceedings were initiated against him by the Additional Deputy Commissioner(General) Cantt. Vide letter dated 28- 4-1994 (Annexure `C'). Without hearing the petitioner, the ejectment proceedings against the respondent No,5 were stopped by the Estate Officer under the directions of the Chief Secretary on 15-5-1994 vide Annexure 'B' to the reply submitted by respondent No,5. This petition has, therefore, been moved by the petitioner for issuance of a direction to the respondents to hand over the vacant possession of the house to him without any further delay on the basis of his regular allotment order.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the petitioner being an llottee of the house was entitled to get its possession and that the respondent No,5 was transferred to Faisalabad for three years and that he had already been allotted Mayor House, Faisalabad, wherein he was continuously living with his family. Learned counsel submits that the respondent No,5 is not entitled to retain possession of two houses simultaneously. He also contended that the respondent remained posted at Lahore for over a period of 17 years and as per the recent decision of the Federal Government, he would be repatriated for his further posting by the Federal Government in due course of time. Learned counsel for the contesting-respondent No,5 argued that the house in question was an 'A' category house which could be allotted to Grade-19 officer only when he was posted as Additional Secretary in the Government of the Punjab. According to him, the petitioner is posted to perform his duties as Additional M.S. In Services Hospital, Lahore, and as such, was not acting as Additional Secretary. This being so, this house was not available, and as such, could not be allotted to the petitioner in any circumstances. He argues that the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab has, in such a situation, rightly cancelled the allotment of the house from the name of the petitioner vide his order dated 30-6-1994. He maintains that respondent No,5 was transferred on deputation to act as Administrator of Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, and that he had been re-transferred to act as Additional Secretary in the Punjab Secretariat. The respondent, thus, cannot be ejected from the said house which was in his authorized possession. Learned counsel maintains that the house in hand was regularly allotted to respondent No, 5 by the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, on 7-3-1993. He further discloses that it has been decided at the highest level that the petitioner would also be accommodated by giving him a house in his own category keeping in view his entitlement and, as such, by this arrangement, both the parties would be accommodated. Learned counsel goes on to argue that a judicial notice may also be taken of the fact that as per decision having been rendered by the High Court, the local bodies elections were required to be held before 31-3-1994. He points out that the date for holding such elections stands extended for an indefinite period. He states that the allotment in favour of the petitioner was conditional inasmuch as the disputed house was not lying vacant and as such it could not be given to the petitioner under any circumstances. The learned Additional Advocate-General, has also assisted the Court by submitting that for the time being it can be said that none of the parties is- entitled to keep the house in question as its allottee. Nonetheless, he has brought to the notice of the Court that the subsequent order issued in favour of the respondent No,5 by the Chief Secretary was not acted upon on the ground that the matter was sub judice before the High Court.
He has read out the detailed reports having been given by the Estate Officer in this behalf to show that the house was not available for its allotment to the respondent.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and have also carefully read the entire record with their assistance. In my view, Dr. Muhammad Hassan, petitioner, is still the lawful and valid allottee of the house in question. His allotment has not been cancelled so far by any competent authority. The house was, admittedly, allotted to the petitioner by the Chief Minister of the Province on 20-3-1994 vide Annexure 'D' while regular allotment order was issued to him on 2-4-1994 vide Annexure 'A'. At the request of the petitioner, the ejectment proceedings were initiated by the respondents functionaries. The letters issued by the Estate Officer, respondent No,3 to respondent No,4 show that the respondent No,5 was declared as unauthorized occupant of the house and as such he was ordered to vacate the house for giving it to the petitioner. This petition was instituted by the petitioner on 28-5.1994 for issuance of a direction to the respondent to give the possession of the house to him. It shall, therefore, follow that during the pendency of this petition before this Court, there was no lawful power vested in the Chief Secretary, Government of the Punjab, to interfere in the matter by ordering that the ejectment proceedings would be stopped and that the allotment of the property from the name of the petitioner would be cancelled vide his order dated 30-6-1994. The application dated 29-6-1994 of the respondent No,5 would show that the Chief Secretary knew fully well that the dispute in respect of ejectment of the respondent No,5 from the house in question was pending adjudication before this Court. It was specifically mentioned by respondent No,5 in his application addressed to the Chief Secretary that the petitioner had already approached the High Court to get possession of the disputed house. This being so, the Chief Secretary had no lawful authority to cancel the allotment of the house from .The name of the petitioner which was allotted to him by the Chief Minister in relaxation of the relevant rules. These are, indeed sad state of affairs. I am, therefore, persuaded to hold that the petitioner is the only regular allottee of House No,4/A, GORE, Lahore, and that on the date of its allotment the respondent No,5 was its unauthorized occupant. This view is supported by the ejectment proceedings having been initiated against respondent No,5 vide Annexures R/Ill and R/IV. It is evident that respondent No,5 did not challenge the cancellation of his allotment order or for that matter, the ejectment proceedings initiated against him by filing a petition before this Court to oppose the petitioner by saying that he was entitled to the retention of the house as its allottee. The fact that ejectment proceedings were initiated against the respondent would demonstrate that he was no more in the authorized possession of the property. It is admitted that respondent No,5 was living in the Mayor House, Faisalabad, as its allottee. This being so, there is no law under which the said respondent could be allowed to retain possession of two official houses at one time. There ;s equally no force in the contention that the petitioner was not entitled to the allotment of this house because it was allotted to him in relaxation of rules by the Chief Minister of Punjab. The Chief Executive of the Province is undoubtedly, the competent authority to relax rules in order to accommodate the petitioner by giving him this house in order to redress his genuine grievances.
This petition was not challenged by the learned Law Officer. Both the officers are in Grade-19 and there is no force in the contention of the learned counsel for the contesting-respondent that the petitioner could not be allotted this house merely for the reason that he was not the Additional Secretary in the Government of the Punjab. The fact remains that the contesting-respondent is also not working as Additional Secretary, Government of the Punjab. This argument of the learned counsel is also not tenable inasmuch as under Article 25 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, all the citizens are equal before law and as such are to be treated equally in accordance with law. If the respondent No,5 can claim to retain the possession of the house on the ground that he is Grade-19 officer and also that he was acting as Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Faisalabad, then the petitioner too can lay a better claim on the ground that he is performing very sensitive and important duties as Additional M.S. In Services Hospital, Lahore, while having no official residence. He has filed his affidavit to show that he was living in a rented house about which he had made a commitment with his landlord to vacate it by a particular date. This is certainly not the position in the case of the respondent. He has an alternate place to live with his family. Therefore, petitioner has certainly an edge over the contesting-respondent to claim the allotment of the house in dispute. Accordingly, I uphold the allotment order passed in favour of the petitioner by setting aside the order of the Chief Secretary dated 30-6-1994. In other words, the ejectment proceedings having been initiated against the respondent No,5 by the respondents No,3 and 4 were valid and as such not open to exception. In consequence, a direction shall issue to respondents Nos.3 and 4 to see to it that vacant possession of the disputed house is handed over to the petitioner within next three weeks without fail. The respondent No,5 is living in Mayor House, Faisalabad, as its allottee and as such shall not be dispossessed there from unless and until he is provided official residence at the place of his new posting, if any. With these remarks, the petition succeeds and is allowed with no orders as to costs.