' CH. MUHAMMAD ARIF, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 11-2-1997 passed in I.C.A. No.254 of 1995, whereby judgment, dated 28-5-1995 made in Writ Petition No.10326 of 1994, was upheld.
2. The dispute herein relates to commercialization of Property No.3/E- Division Bench of the High Court, inter alia, with the following observations: -- " ....Merely because as a matter of concession on one side of the property of respondent No.3 she has been allowed to open an entrance from the green plot of L.D.A. Which may be by the side of Main Boulevard Gulberg it cannot be argued that property of respondent No.3 should be deemed to be abutting on the said road in order to attract the provisions of Regulation No.96(4) regarding production of 'No-Objection Certificate' of the owners of adjoining properties before commercialization was permitted as we have held that for determining this fact the original position of the plot in the scheme is to be made the basis."
' As to the plea that the application of respondent No.3 for commercialization of the plot in dispute was earlier rejected, the learned Judges observed:-- "...We have also observed above that the properties of both the parties are not abutting Main Boulevard Gulberg, therefore, if any of the functionaries of the L.D.A. Intimated the appellants that production of NOC in respect of commercialization of such properties was necessary on the erroneous assumption as if the relevant Regulations were applicable to such properties it cannot ....And no argument can be raised in judicial proceedings to destroy right of any party or to claim any right based on that where none existed.
' It was further observed that it was the Director-General, LDA, who was competent authority to take decision in the matter. In the instant case, the application of respondent No.3 was earlier rejected by an officer who was not competent to take decision in the matter. On these premises, the learned Division Bench observed as below:-- "The correctness of the legal position that in any case it was the Director-General who was the competent authority to decide the matters relating to commercialization, and as to requirement of production of NOC, or otherwise being a matter connected for taking decision whether commercialization of a particular property should be allowed or not, any admission in this behalf erroneously made by any other officer of the L.D.A. Who exchanged correspondence with the appellants without the approval of the Director-General would not amount to a finding or an admission binding on the Director-General and the LDA. Learned counsel for appellants has not been able to show that the officer who took stand in the letters addressed to the appellants that request for commercialization of property shall not be considered unless accompanied by a NOC erroneously assuming that such a certificates was necessary was made after the approval of the Director-General, therefore, argument of learned counsel for respondent No.3 that some lower officer in the L.D.A. Made erroneous admission on a particular fact which was required to be determined by the Director-General in order to favour the appellants behind the back of respondent No.3 appears to have some force."
9. The learned Division Bench also took into consideration the failure on the part of respondent No.3 to append NOCs from the owners of adjoining properties with her application which was rejected 3 years prior to the grant of the commercialization and held that:-- ' This power was conferred obviously to avoid a situation where any of the owners of the adjoining properties might without any justification or reason use the provision of production of NOC to balckmail the owner of the property who wanted to commercialise it. As has been observed, earlier also the commercialization of the property by the L.D.A. Was allowed but respondent No.3 could not avail of the said facility as she could not deposit the fee. It no doubt establishes that as a matter of principle L.D.A. Had earlier no objection to commercialization of property of respondent No.3, therefore, in our view it was...In furtherance of the same that commercialization has been allowed for which respondent No.3 has already suffered as she had to pay a huge amount which she has paid for availing of this permission."
10. The afore-quoted excerpts from the impugned judgment are a complete answer to the petitioners' pleas in their entirety. It is not necessary to dilate upon the point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners in relation to submission of NOCs from the owners of the adjoining properties any further. Suffice it to say that in the finding recorded by the learned Division Bench of the High Court, after perusing the material available on record as also after hearing the parties in support of their respective cases, it was rightly concluded that respondent No.3 could not avail of the facility of commercialization of her property on account of her failure to deposit the fee in that regard.
11. In these circumstances it is not necessary to decide as to whether the provisions of the Regulations are directory or mandatory. This aspect will be examined in some other appropriate case. No other point was raised.
12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the instant petition fails and is le hereby dismissed. Leave is refused.