1. ' MUHAMMAD YUNUS SURAKHVI, J.---This appeal, with the leave of the Court, has been directed against an order recorded by the High Court, AJK, on November 13, 1995 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant herein was dismissed, in limine.
2. ' The precise facts, as disclosed in the writ petition filed by the appellant herein, are that the appellant alleged that a piece of land in subsector E-2 was in her possession since 1973 which was, later on, marked, as Plot. No, 11-D in sub-sector E-2, Mirpur City. The appellant claimed that she constructed a residential room over the aforesaid plot and applied for its allotment. However, on 12-4-1990, the aforesaid plot was allotted in favour of respondent No,6 and subsequently, respondent No,5, the Revising Authority revised the same in favour of respondent No,6. The order of allotment and that of the Revising Authority was challenged on the ground that the same having been made without any lawful authority and jurisdictional competence, may be set at naught. The High Court dismissed the writ petition in limine vide the impugned order mainly on the following grounds:---
(1) that the encroachment alleged to have been made on the plot in question, has not been effected prior to June 30, 1981 and the same being not proved by any official record;
(ii) that the appellant/petitioner challenged the allotment nearly after five years and as such, the writ petition was hit by the principle of laches; and
(iii) that the appellant-petitioner had availed an adequate remedy of filing the civil suit; thus, the writ petition was without any substance.
3. ' Arguing the case on behalf of the appellant, Mr. Muhammad Riaz Tabassum, the learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the appellant is in possession of a vacant piece of land subsequently marked as Plot No, 11-D and had constructed a residential room over the said plot. It was contended that the appellant duly applied for the allotment of plot in the year 1988, deposited the earnest money but without considering the application of the appellant, the allotment has been made in favour of respondent No,6 in violation of relevant rules. The learned counsel submitted that the allotment made from the Prime Minister's quota was in flagrant violation of rules and the High Court, without any cogent reason, dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant on the ground that the copies of the official record appended with the writ petition were the photostat copies which were inadmissible in evidence. However, according to the learned counsel, the fact of the matter was that he duly applied for obtaining the relevant copies of official record from the Municipal Corporation but the said copies were not provided to the appellant.
4. ' On the other hand, Mr. Muhammad Riaz Alam, the learned counsel for respondent No,6 submitted that the plot in question was allotted in favour of his client from the quota of Prime Minister and the same was not available for allotment. The Prime Minister was fully competent to allot the plot to any one at his sweet discretion and the appellant was not competent to challenge the same. It was also pressed into service by the learned counsel for the respondent that even otherwise the plot in question could not have been allotted to the appellant as she could not substantiate her possession since June, 1981. The appellant, according to the learned counsel, was heard by the Revising Authority in support of her application for the allotment but the same was turned down.
5. The appellant challenged the order of allotment and the order passed by the Revising Authority after a considerable delay, and as such, her writ petition was badly hit by the principle of laches.
6. The learned counsel submitted that the High Court committed no illegality in passing the impugned order. Mr: Liaquat Ali Khan, the learned counsel for respondents Nos.1 to 5, fully supported and endorsed the arguments raised by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Alam.
7. ' After hearing the respective contentions raised by the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the record, it may be stated that respondent No,6 moved an application before the Prime Minister of the relevant time for the allotment of a plot out of his reserved quota vide his application dated April 12, 1990. This application forms part of the High Court's file and is marked as Annexure "P-9" at page 24. On this application, the Prime Minister directed the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur to allot a plot in favour of respondent out of hiS reserved quota. Accordingly, the plot was allotted by the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur in favour of respondent No,6. The appellant in para. 5 of her writ petition has specifically averred that the respondent moved an application to the Prime Minister for the allotment of plot from his quota and the application was forwarded to the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur. Similarly, a photostat copy of report made by the Chairman, Inspection Team appended with the writ petition as Annexure P-14 by the appellant herself, reveals at page 30 in the High Court file that the plot in question was allotted in favour of respondent No,6 from the quota reserved for the Prime Minister. So, the admitted position between the parties is that the disputed plot stands allotted in favour of respondent No,6 from the quota of Prime Minister. As said earlier, the Prime Minister was fully competent to allot a plot to any person at his sweet discretion because the same was discretionary with the Prime Minister. The rules known as "Estate Disposal Rules and Regulations, Municipal Committee, 1985" do not, in our view, place any embargo on the allotment of plots from the quota reserved for Prime Minister/Chief Executive. In a reported case "Mst. Sairan Bibi v. Mirpur Development Authority and 12 others" (1988 CLC 2330), it was held at page 2331 as under:--- "It is undisputed that the plot in question was allotted by the President/ Chief Executive to the respondent No,3 from his own 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 Executive 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/Chief 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 MDA, under the rules. There is no guideline laid down for such an allotment. The powers of the President/Chief Executive in this respect are urrestricted and unlimited, and as such, allotment of 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, that 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....".
8. ' In an unreported case titled "Ghulam Rasool v. Chairman, Municipal Committee and others, decided by the High Court, Azad Jammu & Kashmir, on 17-2-1992 dealing with somewhat similar proposition, the learned Judge in the High Court observed in the following manner:--- "Furthermore, the plot in question was allotted to respondent No,4 out of the quota of Prime Minister. In my opinion, the procedure embodied in Rules 6 and 7 of Regulation No,7, has been laid down for general plots and this procedure has no application on the plots which are reserved for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is competent to allot any plot in favour of any person out of his reserved quota. Therefore, keeping in view the order of the Prime Minister, the allotment order can be validly issued and passed by the Chairman, Municipal Committee, Mirpur..".
9. Even otherwise, we are of considered view that the appellant could not substantiate the claim of her possession over the plot in question before 30th June, 1981 as the same is the fundamental requirement as of law and it was rightly observed by the High Court, as such. Annexure P-8 appended with the writ petition and relied by the appellant herself, the report made by Overseer, Municipal Corporation, states that the room constructed by the appellant on the plot in dispute appears to have been constructed in the year 1986. Similarly, the report of Chairman, Inspection Team Annexure P-14, though, a photostat copy, also states in the very beginning that the appellant had constructed a residential, room alongwith the 'Chappar' over the plot in question since 1986. At another place in the same report, it is stated that the appellant appears to have taken the possession of the disputed plot in the year 1981. This has been narrated just to show that the beginning part of the report is contradictory to its latter part. Furthermore, the above report is a photostat copy which is not admissible in evidence as opined by the High Court. The assertion of the learned counsel for the appellant is that he duly applied for obtaining the attested copy of the aforesaid report but the fact remains that the application for obtaining the copy of this report was moved before the Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur, who was naturally not in possession of the original copy. Had the appellant been vigilant enough, she could have applied for obtaining the copy of the report from the office of the Chairman, Inspection Team.
10. ' Another alarming aspect of the case is that there is an application filed by the appellant before the Chairman, Revising Authority forming Annexure 'P-6' with the writ petition moved by the appellant requesting that she may be heard during the revising of the plot in question, upon which, the Chairman, Revising Authority directed the Secretary, Revising Authority, to issue notice to the appellant. The report of the Chairman, Inspection Team appended with the writ petition and relied by the appellant herself reveals that a notice was issued to the appellant for appearing before the Revising Authority and she duly put her case before it but her claim was turned down. Thus, there remains no manner of doubt that the appellant was duly heard by the Revising Authority in support of her application but her claim was rejected vide the order of the Revising Authority dated 22-11- 1993. After the verdict of the Revising Authority, the appellant remained silent for nearly about two years and filed the writ petition in the High Court on 28-8-1995. In our view, the appellant had been guilty of laches and indolence and there is nothing on the record furnishing any explanation for the indolence and an inexcusable delay on the part of the appellant to seek her remedy through the Constitutional petition. The claim of the appellant that the order of allotment and Revising Authority was passed secretly in absence of appellant is baseless and unfounded. The same is, therefore, repelled.
11. ' The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the allotment in favour of respondent No,6 was patently illegal and violative of law as he could not prove his possession over the plot but this argument appears to be untenable; firstly for the reason that the allotment in favour of respondent was admittedly made from the Prime Minister's quota; and secondly, even if, we assume the contention of learned counsel for the appellant to be true; that merits no consideration for the simple ground that the official acts are always presumed to be done in accordance with law. The allotment made in favour of respondent No,6 shall be presumed to be in conformity with the provisions of law, Rules and Regulations unless something is brought on record which tends to show otherwise.
12. ' For the reasons stated above, finding no force in this appeal, it is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.