' BASHARAT AHMAD SHAIKH, J.--- Plots Nos.112-A, 170-A and 170-B were allotted to appellants 1 to 3. It led to protracted litigation spreading over three rounds, but the essential facts for determination of this appeal are that the High Court has accepted a writ petition filed by respondent Mehtab Ahmad and has held that the constitution of Local Task Committee was an act without jurisdiction.
It has also held that the allotments of Plots Nos.170-A, 170-B and 112-A in Sector E-5, Mirpur City in the name of the private appellants was of no legal effect. Further transfer of 'these plots was also held illegal. Asif Mehmood, Amjad Mahmood and Jamil Akhtar as well as Administrator, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur have filed this appeal to challenge the judgment of the High Court.
2. The allotment of the plots in dispute was described as "regularisation" and was ordered by the Mayor, Municipal Corporation, Mirpur. It is admitted between the parties that regularisation was made under Regulation No,16 of Mirpur Municipal Committee Regulations for Development and Disposal of Plots/Estate, 1985,. Which is to the following effect:-- "Regularisation of encroachments etc.--- The Chairman may regularise the encroachments subject to the provision of Master Plan and Local Government Ordinance on any piece of Government land/rejected area in a prescribed manner; provided that--
(i) the person who has encroached upon the Government land or rejected area, fall in criteria under clause 9(2) above;
(ii) the encroachment does not effect the Master Plan/Original Planning;
(iii) the encroachment may not effect any road, plot, or areas reserved for Government buildings, like Hospitals, Schools, Dispensaries, or any other public institution or areas reserved for disposal works sewers or water supply lines, etc.;
(iv) the encroachment which has been effected prior to 30-6-1981 and the same is sufficiently approved by the official records;
(v) the encroachment is by no means against the approved housing scheme and more than one Kanal."
' The High Court has held that the plots in dispute were not in possession of the allottees. The learned counsel for the appellants, Mr. Muhammad Yunus Tahir, has been unable to dispute this factual aspect of the case. The legal position is that Regulation No,16 lays down as an essential ingredient for regularisation that there should be encroachment effected prior to 30th June, 1981, which should be proved by official record. Since this condition is not fulfilled in the present cases of regularization there can be no opinions on the point that it was colourable exercise of jurisdiction to order regularisation in favour of private appellants. Thus, the orders of regularisation were, therefore, clearly without jurisdiction.
3. The other ground on which the High Court has accepted the writ petition filed by respondent Mehtab Ahmad is that Local Task Committee had no jurisdiction to restore or make allotments. It was argued by Mr. Muhammad Yunus Tahir, the learned counsel for the appellant, that the Committee was set up to carry out scrutiny of allotments. He submitted that although it was called Local Task Committee yet it was in fact a Revising Authority which can be set Up under section 61-A of the Local Government Act, 1990. He contended that the mere fact that the Committee was called a Local Task Committee instead of a Revising Authority does not vitiate constitution of that body.
He, therefore, contended that the High Court wrongly put a narrow construction on section 61-A. We find no merit in this contention. The Local Task Committee was set up on 6th January, 1997. On that date, section 61-A of the Local Government Act, which had been substituted for the original section, stood as follows:-- "61-A. Appointment of Revising Authority.--- (a) There shall be a Revising Authority, to be appointed by the Government for the scrutiny of irregularities or illegalities committed in respect of allotment of plots or estate or in determination of title of any allottee or person applying for allotment.
(b) Revising Authority either suo mom, or on a reference made to it by any authority or on an application made by any person, may call for any case in respect of any allotment, in which an order has been made by an allotment authority or which is pending before or disposed of by the Appellate Authority established under this Act.
(c) The Revising Authority may after hearing the party likely to be affected, confirm, modify or set aside such allotment order or may make any other order which it, may deem fit."
' The provision of law reproduced above shows that Revising Authority is empowered to act when allotments are intact and a need arises for scrutiny of irregularities or illegalities committed while making allotments. It is clearly laid down in clause (c) that the Revising Authority may confirm or set aside an allotment order. This section does not relate to a situation in which allotments have already been cancelled. The notification of 6th January, 1997 under which the Local Task Committee was set up lays down that the Committee would deal with those allotments which had already been cancelled. It follows that Local Task Committee did not answer to the description of Revising Authority visulaised by section 61-A. It is, therefore, clear that the High Court was right in holding that the constitution of the Local Task Committee could not be upheld in light of section 61- A. No other provision of law was cited before the High Court or before us to justify its validity. In fact no such provision is available in the Local Government Act.
4. Mr. Muhammad Yunus Tahir raised a technical objection that the writ petition filed by respondent Mehtab Ahmed was not maintainable because at two previous occasions he had filed two civil suits which debarred him from filing a writ petition. The relevant copies are available in the file which show that Mehtab Ahmad and his brother Mumtaz Ahmad filed a civil suit on 24th September, 1997 which they withdrew on 13th May, 1997. The said suit was for seeking permanent injunction addressed to Muhammad Nazir and his son Asif Mahmood restraining them from illegally and forcibly occupying land adjacent to Plots Nos.170, 171 and from demolishing a Parda wall constructed, as claimed, by the plaintiffs. The suit was withdrawn on 13th May, 1997. It was vehemently contended by Mr. Muhammad Yunus Tahir, the learned counsel for the appellants, that if a suit is withdrawn without permission of the Court no new suit can be instituted in light of Rule 1, Order 23 of the Civil Procedure Code. There is weight in the reply given by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Inqalabi, the learned counsel for the respondent, that the aforesaid rule had no application to the present case because it applies only if the subject-matter of the fresh suit is the same, but in the present case the writ petition was filed to challenge the allotment in favour of the present appellants which is entirely different from the subject-matter of the civil suit under reference. We also note that the Municipal Corporation as well as the Local Task Committee were not arrayed as defendants in the suit. These factors make Rule 1 of Order 23 totally inapplicable. So far as the other suit is concerned, the order of 20th February, 1998 passed by the learned Sub-Judge shows that the plaint was rejected under Rule 11 of Order 7. Under Rule 13 of the same Order rejection of plaint does not preclude the plaintiff from presenting a fresh plaint in respect of the same cause of action. That being so no valid objection can be raised in respect of the maintainability of the writ petition filed by respondent Mehtab Ahmad.
' No other point was raised in support of the appeal. The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed with costs in this Court.