1. ' The dispute relates to allotment of plots situate in the Qasimabad Housing Scheme Phase I & II under Hyderabad Development Authority. According to the petitioners 17 applicants including the petitioners were allotted plots by then Chief Minister Sindh by relaxation of the provisions of section 15 of the Sindh Disposal of Plots Ordinance, 1980 (hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance) section 15 of the Ordinance reads as under: "any provision contained in this Ordinance may be relaxed in any case if Government is satisfied that strict application thereof would cause hardship in that case or is otherwise expedient."
2. ' The petitioners had applied in the year 1991 for allotment of 240 Sq. Yds. Residential-cum- Commercial plots and allegedly their applications bearing orders of the Chief Minister was received in the office of the respondent No,1 in May 1992. There it transpired that 14 plots bearing Plots Nos.1 to 14 had already been allotted to some other persons, therefore, the petitioners were allotted Plots Nos. 15 to 22 in the same scheme. Thereafter they deposited 50% charges as per the challans against each plot. It is further disclosed by the petitioners that in July 1991 the respondents were asked by the Chief Minister Sindh that summary of every subject must be floated for confirmation of the Chief Minister Sindh. Therefore, the summay was floated in August 1991 and the allotment as prayed for by the petitioners (vide list B) was approved by the then Chief Minister.
3. ' However before any further action could be taken in the matter the Government of Sindh imposed ban on allotment of land in October 1992. The petitioners have further alleged that the respondents have been floating summaries of other applicants for allotments of plots and proposals for joint venture schemes to the Government of Sindh but the summary of the petitioners was not processed. The petitioners then submitted application to the respondents and also submitted direct application to the then Chief Minister Sindh who allegedly allowed their request as per policy.
4. On a subsequent application submitted in March 1994 the Minister for Housing and Town Planning, Government of Sindh also made endorsement for immediate implementation of the orders of the Chief Minister. Even then no action was taken and the petitioners were kept on false hopes. They therefore, filed this petition and prayed as follows: "(i) Declare that the non-compliance and evasion of the abovementioned clear and confirmed legal orders of the Chief Minister Sindh by the respondents is mala fide, ultra vires, illegal and not in due discharge on their duty.
(ii) Direct the respondents to implement the abovesaid orders by further processing the cases of the allotments of (240 Sq. Yds.) Plots Nos.15 to 22 in Qasimabad Phase-I, Hyderabad of the petitioners Nos.1 to 8 respectively by receiving remaining 50% occupancy value and other charges, handing over physical possessions and executing lease deeds in favour of the petitioners."
5. ' In the parawise comments the respondents denied the claim of the petitioners. It would be relevant to reproduce paras. 8 and 9 of the comments which were also referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioners: "Para. 8 of the petition.--It is admitted to the extent that the petitioners applied in the year 1991 for allotment of 240 sqaure yards plots and the then Chief Minister of Sindh, Late Jam Sadiq Ali passed the orders on the applications of the petitioners for allotment of Residential-cumCommercial plots of 240 square yards at Qasimabad Phase-I, H.D.A., Hyderabad under section 15 of the Sindh Disposal of Plots Ordinance, 1980 at the rate of Rs,200 per square yard. Applications containing the orders of the then Chief Minister Sindh were received by the respondents in May 1991, the rest as denied. It is further submitted that no allocation or allotment orders were issued in favour of petitioners in respect of plot numbers 15 to 22 as contained in this para. The actual position is that only demand notes were issued to the petitioners for depositing 50% of the occupancy value and other charges which was prerequisite for consideration of their cases for processing for the purpose of allotment of plots. The deposit of 50% of occupancy value and other charges did not confer any right on the petitioners for allotment of the plots applied for, as the allotment could only be made after the approval of the Competent Authority i,e, Chief Minister Sindh. Para.9 of the petition.--It is denied as the petitioners have distorted facts in this para. As already submitted in the preceding paras., the demand letters and challans for the deposit of 50% occupancy value and other charges were issued which in fact was prerequisite for consideration of their cases for processing for the purpose of allotment. The details of the demand letters, challans and payments made are not disputed."
6. ' While denying all adverse averments the respondents stated that as soon as the specific orders are received from the Competent Authority action will be taken accordingly. Therefore, presently the petitioners cannot claim as their legal right for the allotment of valuable plots on Government/H.D.A. Land at cheaper rates.
7. ' We have heard Mr. Abdus Salam Qureshi Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. S. Masood Ali, Advocate for the respondents.
8. It is an admitted position that so far the petitioners have not been issued any allotment order and they have based their claim on the correspondence exchanged and the summaries prepared by the respondents for perusal and approval of the Chief Minister Sindh. Nothing has been given in writing to the petitioners by the respondents to convey them any decision taken by the Competent Authority. When we asked learned counsel for the petitioners as to how the petitioners managed to obtain photo copies of the confidential summaries and official correspondence his reply was that he obtained the same from an office assistant posted in the Secretariat of the Chief Minister but he could not disclose his name. Notwithstanding this aspect we are of the view that any decision or order having been made on official files till such time it is conveyed to the petitioners would not confer any right for seeking relief as prayed for. It is quite apparent that the petitioners seemingly in league and collusion with subordinate concerned functionaries managed to obtain official documents and by suppression of facts also succeeded in seeking endorsement of ' approval' from the concerned Minister and the Chief Minister Sindh. The Government as well as the concerned local authorities have every right to dispose of the State land or to impose ban in accordance with law. Mr. Abdus Salam Qureshi, Advocate cited Jamal Shah v. Azad Government of State of Jammu and Kashmir and 7 others (1991 MLD (Azad J&K) 1243) and Muhammad Farooq H. Memon, Advocate v. Government of Sindh (1986 CLC (Karachi) 1403) in support of his submission that the respondents have not filed any counter-affidavit denying the averments made by the petitioners in the petition therefore, in the absence of counter-affidavit averments made in the petition supported by the affidavit of the petitioner No,1 should be presumed to be true. Prima facie there is force in this submission as the law is well-settled on this point but on deeper examination we find that the above judgments are not attracted to the facts and circumstances of the present petition.
9. The petitioners must succeed on the strength and merits of their own case. As observed earlier in the absence of any valid communication to the petitioners/or issuance of allotment order no legal right has accrued to them. Accordingly this petition being misconceived is dismissed in limine.
10. ' Above are the reasons of the short order announced in Court on 18-4-1995.