Property No,SE-14-R-36, Khasra No,518, 36 Empress Road, Lahore which was an evacuee property was transferred in favour of Begum Almas Daultana by the Settlement Department vide-sale-deed dated 9-8-1983 she sold it to Mian Atta Ullah. The LDA included the said land in its scheme known as Kashmir Egerton Road vide notification dated 26-7-1968 and exempted Plot Nos.39, 40 and 41 to Mian Atta Ullah mentioned above. He submitted building plan to the LDA on 21-9-1992 Which was approved on 23-9-1992 subject to the conditions mentioned in letter No,1143, dated 23-9-1992.
2. Later on Pyramid Builders (Pvt.) Limited purchased the said plots measuring 7 Kanals, 11 Marlas from Atta Ullah leaving one Kanal which had been shown as part of the street. The exemption granted in favour of Mian Atta Ullah by the L.D.A. was withdrawn on 20-7-1993 on the ground that his title had proved defective. Hence this writ petition by Pyramid Builders.
3. It is, inter alia, contended that Pyramid Builders, the petitioner had purchased the property for a very substantial amount and title of the land had been affirmed after a prolonged litigation and the LDA in recognition of that title of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner had sanctioned the building plan and had also allowed exemption/adjustment in the shape of plots bearing Nos.39 to 41 vide their letter dated 21-11-1991 and that the petitioner relying on the actions of the respondent had purchased the aforesaid property and they were estopped on the principle of promissory estoppel from withdrawing the exemption. It is added that no opportunity of hearing was allowed to the petitioner before passing the impugned order nor has any material provided to him justifying the withdrawal of the exemption.
4. Learned counsel representing the LDA has been heard at length. He has not been able to point out any defect in the title of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner in the land in question. No details of the alleged defect in the title of ownership of the predecessor-in-interest are shown. It was merely a vague allegation, without any foundation. No legal proceedings are reported to be pending in any Court of law at the instance of any party about the title of the petitioner or his predecessor-in-interest.
5. The LDA which was the competent authority had competently granted exemption in favour of Mian Atta Ullah, the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and had even acted upon the same by according approval to the building plan submitted by him, therefore, it had no power to recede or rescind the exemption of plots granted in favour of Mian Atta Ullah. The principle of locus poenitentiae would be fully applicable to the facts and circumstances of the case. It is an admitted position that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing either to Mian Ata Ullah or to the petitioner. There has been, thus, a violation of the principle of natural justice which is ingrained in every rule or law. Thus, rule is supposed to be implied in every statute even where the said statute does not provide a right of audience. Muhammad Younis v. Secretary, Ministry of Communication (1992 PLC (CS) 952(d), may be cited with advantage in this behalf where it was observed that:-- "Rule of natural justice is to be read into the provisions of law authorising the statutory functionaries to pass orders in relations to be rights of citizens."
It is a settled proposition of law that a contract/agreement duly entered I c into between the parties cannot be unilaterally rescinded.
6. For what has been stated above, the LDA had no justification whatsoever to withdraw the exemption/adjustment of the plots in question in favour of Mian Atta Ullah. Consequently, the petitioner succeeds and the impugned order dated 20-7-1993 passed by the LDA/Land Development Directorate is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Parties are left to bear their own costs.