The brief facts leading to this Constitutional petition are that on 1-10-1960, Plot No.'5-E measuring 16 Kanals, 5 Marlas situated in the Officers Colony, Multan was allotted to Sardar Ata Muhammad Khan Leghari (deceased respondent No.5) by the Government Gazetted Officers Cooperative House Building Society, registered under the Societies Act hereinafter to be referred as the Society'
He paid of the entire amount. His allotment was, however, cancelled by resolution of the society dated 18-6-1972, as he could not raise construction over the plot within stipulated period of one and a half years and as such failed to comply with the terms and conditions of the allotment. In 1976, Multan Improvement Trust was abolished and in its place Multan Development Authority came into being. On the promulgation of Development of Cities Act, 1976 rights and obligations of Multan Improvement Trust devolved upon the Multan Development Authority. The M.D.A. As provided under the provisions of Martial Law Instructions 23, carved out the plots not exceeding two Kanals in the area.
One Kanal of plot was allotted to petitioner No. 1, whereas plot of two Kanals was allotted to petitioner No.2.
2. Respondent No.5 made representations before various forums, wherein he called in question the cancellation of the plot from its name. He also submitted an application to Chief Minister, Punjab, who was also Chairman, M.D.A. As Minister Incharge Housing, Physical and Environmental Planning Department, who directed the Commissioner, Multan to inquire about the facts of the case. The dispute was referred to the arbitration of the nominee of the Registrar, Cooperative Societies under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, who in his award held that the cancellation of allotment of plot from the name of respondent No.5 was illegal and without lawful authority. The Chief Minister restored the allotment of the plot to respondent No.5. The possession of 3 Kanals was to be handed over to the respondent No.5, but in view of order of this Court dated 11-7-1994, the possession of 3 Kanals could not be delivered to him. Earlier, the petitioners filed a Writ Petition No.146/89 regarding this plot which was heard by his Lordships Muhammad Munir Khan, J. Of this Court (as he then was) who while disposing of the petition observed:--- "The possession of the plots of the petitioners remains with the M.D.A. So without entering into the question of the legality of the order of restoration made by the Chief Minister in favour of respondent No.4, I would direct that before passing any order affecting adversely the rights of the petitioners to own and to possess the disputed plots, the Chairman, M.D.A./Minister concerned, will give them opportunity of being heard. This petition is disposed of accordingly leaving the parties to bear their own costs."
Subsequently, the Minister, Housing, Physical and Environmental Planning Department heard ail the concerned parties including the petitioners had endorsed the order of the Chief Minister whereby the allotment of plot No.5-E measuring 16 Kanals and 5 Marlas was restored to respondent No.5. He, in the aforesaid order directed that possession of remaining 3 Kanals of the plot be also handed over to him by the M.D.A. Immediately.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that restoration of the plot to respondent No.5 was illegal on the following grounds:--- Firstly, the respondent No.5 failed to raise constructions over the plot within the prescribed period of one and a half years.
Secondly, the award by the nominee of the Registrar Cooperative Societies was never made rule of the Court.
Thirdly, the allotment of 16 Kanals, 5 Marlas was in violation of Martial Law Instruction 23 because the plot exceeding two Kanals could not be allotted under it.
4. The learned counsel for the respondents/defended initial allotment made on 1-10-1960 and its subsequent restoration on the basis of the award.
5. I have heard both the learned counsel and perused the record.
6. The arguments that since the award was not made rule of the Court, so therefore, it was invalid, was misconceived. The dispute as a matter of fact was referred to the nominee of the Registrar under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and not under Arbitration Act, 1940. The award, therefore, became final under section 57 of the Act and did not require any validation from the Civil Court.
7. The plot allotted to the petitioners on 10-1-1960 could not be cancelled on 18-6-1972 on the plea that the petitioners could not raise any construction on it. In this respect the Society glossed over the fact that the plot was in possession of the squatters and, therefore, it was not possible for respondent No.5 to raise any construction on it.
8. The allotment in favour of respondent No.5 which was cancelle on 18-1-1972 stood reaored and the allotment subsequent to it in favour of the petitioners was therefore of no consequence.
9. There is ample material available on the record that respondent No.5 did not sit back unruffled.
He in fact made repeated representations before relevant forums.
10. Since the allotment was initially made on 10-1-1960, therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners to the effect that the allotment in favour of respondent No.5 was not in accordance with the provisions of Martial Law Instruction 23 was untenable for the sole reason that it had no application to the previous proceedings.
11. This writ petition was kept pending on the request of the learned counsel for the parties vide order of this Court dated 7-2-1995 as the same subject-matter was involved in I.C.A. No.64/1991. It has been stated by both the learned counsel that appeal filed against. Sardar Ata Muhammad Khan Leghari (deceased respondent No.5) in respect of Plot No.5-E has been dismissed by the learned Division Bench vide its judgment dated 27-3-1995
12. For the foregoing reasons I hold that plot No.5-E measuring 16 Kanals and 5 Marlas was lawfully allotted in favour of respondent No.5 on 10-1-1960. The society was not authorised to cancel this allotment and, therefore, it was validly restored by the Chief Minister. Resultantly, the allotment of 3 Kanals, out of Plot No.5-E, an favour of petitioners is declared without lawful authority.
13. Pursuant to the above discussion, this petition is without any merit and is hereby dismissed with no order as to costs.