The facts leading to the filing of this Constitutional petition are like this. The petitioner is the allottee of Ahata No.428 measuring 7 Marlas situated in Chak No. 185/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari under the Jinnah Abadi Scheme 1986. The plots under the aforesaid scheme have also been allotted to 497 other persons. Copy of the mutation (Annexure 'C') shows that the allotments were mutated on 20-6-1996. The land allotted under the Jinnah Abadi Scheme was agricultural in nature and the possession to the allottees has not yet been delivered.
2. Through notification, dated 11-3-1996 (Annexure ' D') the Government of the Punjab under section 10(1) of the Punjab Jinnah Abadis Scheme for Non---Proprietors in Rural Areas Act, 1986 decided that in future the size of plots should not exceed 5 Marlas.
3. In para. No.4 of the petition it is stated that the District Collector and the Assistant Commissioner have cancelled the allotments of some of the allottees without legal authority and without prior notice. It is further stated that after the notification aforesaid the size of the plots allotted to the petitioner and others have been cut down to 5 Marlas and the allotments have been made to many other persons who are not eligible for transfer of the plots. In the background of these facts a direction is sought for delivery of possession of plots to the allottees under the 7 Marlas Scheme and to restrain the respondents from making further allotments under the 5 Marlas Scheme.
4. Regarding the grievance that allotments of some other allottees have been illegally cancelled without issuance of prior show-cause notice to them, suffice it to say that the petitioner has no locus standi to raise grievance on behalf of others. He is not an aggrieved person so far as the other allottees are concerned. In support of his objection to the reduction of the size of the plots to 5 Marlas, learned counsel has contended that the allotments of the 7 Marlas plots to the non- proprietors having already been acted upon through entry in the revenue record, the size of the plots cannot be reduced now. It is further submitted that the subsequent decision of the Government taken vide notification, dated 11-3-1996 cannot have retrospective effect. Similarly, he has submitted that the revenue authorities are duty bound to deliver the possession of the 7 Marlas plots to the allottees.
5. I am afraid, the above contentions of the learned counsel are without force. According to the petitioner's own case the possession of the plots has not yet been delivered to the allottees. Even the mutation (Annexure 'C') regarding allotment of plots has been sanctioned on 20-6-1996 much after the notification aforesaid. If the possession had been delivered to the allottees before 11-3- 1996 then, of course, the land given to the allottees could not have been retrieved by reducing the size of the plots. But since the possession has not yet been delivered and mutation was also not sanctioned before the said date, the competent revenue authorities in pursuance of the notification aforesaid can reduce the size of the plots and given possession to the allottees of the plots of the smaller size.
6. Apart from the above view, the petitioner has no case in the equitable jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution. Obviously, the land has been given to those persons who do not own houses of their own in the villages. Initially the size of the plots/Ahatas was 7 Marlas but now with the passage of time since 1986 the population has rapidly grown and many more shelterless families have to be accommodated. They are also required to be provided with plots to raise constructions for residential purposes. Therefore, if the size of the plots has been reduced from 7 Marlas to 5 Marlas with a view to accommodate more shelterless people, this has been done for the noble purpose keeping in line with the object for which the Act was promulgated in 1986. The 5 Marlas size of a residential unit in villages is proper and fair size. Therefore; the action taken by the Government and his functionaries is towards the betterment of greater number of deserving persons. Such an action cannot be struck down in the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution. It may also be pertinently mentioned that the allotments of the plots to the petitioner and other shelterless people have been made ex gratia, free of all charges.
Therefore, either in equity or on any moral ground that petitioner has no claim to insist for transfer of 7 Marlas plot/Ahata instead of plot/Ahata of 5 Marlas size. In this view of the matter, I am not inclined to exercise the discretionary jurisdiction in favour of the petitioner.
7. The last but not the least is the objection that the writ petition has been filed against the public functionaries only without impleading the persons who have been allotted plots out of the area made available on account of reduction of the size of the plots allotted to the petitioner and others.
They are the necessary parties but they have not been impleaded as respondents.
For what has been discussed above, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed in limine.