' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.---The appellant filed a writ petition in the High Court in respect of a plot in Mirpur Town which has been dismissed.
2. The writ petition was filed seeking directions of the High Court to the Mirpur Development Authority as well as its Allotment Committee to issue to him (the appellant) allotment chit, possession chit etc. Of Plot No,24 (old) and now numbered as Plot No,5, Sub-Sector G-1, Part II. He contended that the plot had been originally allotted to him but was subsequently allotted to respondent Muhammad Siddique. He sought a direction that he may not be dispossessed.
According to the learned Judge in the High Court he could not adduce evidence in support of his claim of being an allottee. He was also held to be trespasser and, therefore, not entitled to file a writ petition. The High Court has also noticed that the appellant is allottee of Plot No,24, measuring 10 Marlas, situated in Sub-Sector G-1, Part II and for that reason another plot could not be allotted to him in light of the relevant rules.
3. With the help of the learned counsel for the appellant we have gone through the record attached with the writ petition. A notice, Annexure P/2, sent to the appellant on 23rd of December, 1978 by the Municipal Committee shows that the appellant was in possession of land measuring 165 square feet and he had built a room on it. The structure built by the appellant was subsequently numbered as house/hut No,74. It is on the record that a large number of refugees like the appellant similarly put up unauthorised structure in the same vicinity. The appellant subsequently filed an application that it may be allotted to him. Subsequently the concerned authorities prepared a Housing Scheme and the area over which the refugees had put up huts came under Part II of Sub-Sector 6/1. In accordance with the Housing Scheme mentioned above plots were allotted to different persons. The land in occupation of the appellant fell under Plot No,1, which was allotted to respondent Muhammad Siddique. However, Plot No,24 in the same scheme was allotted to the appellant. It is a ten-Marla plot while the land under possession of the appellant, according to Annexure P/2, was not even one Marla. The file shows that no allotment was ever made in favour of the appellant so far as land now under Plot No,5 is concerned. The appellant has been rehabilitated in light of the general policy drawn up for rehabilitation of refugees who were in unauthorised occupation of land now failing under Phase II of Sector G-1.
4. As mentioned above the writ petition was filed to seek direction to issue allotment chit in favour of the appellant but the High Court has rightly held that he failed to produce any proof. The High Court was also right in holding that the appellant was not entitled to any plot in view of allotment of Plot No,24 mentioned above. Since the appellant already holds allotment of a plot, he is disentitled to seek another allotment.
5. The learned counsel for the appellant has cited unreported judgments of this Court Abdul Aziz v.
Muhammad Amin and others Civil Appeal No,56 of 1985, decided on 23-1-1988 and Amjad Mahmud v. Zubair Ahmad and others (Civil P.L.A. No,95 of 1991, decided on 19-12-1991). We have gone through them but we find that they are not relevant to the facts as established in the present case.
' The upshot of the above discussion is that we find no justification for interfering in the order passed by the High Court and dismiss the appeal with no order as to costs.