SAVED NAJAM-UL-HASSAN KAZM1, J. -- Plot No. 5-D Peoples Colony, Faisalabad was allotted in favour of appellant, in 1958 by respondents Nos. 1 and 2. Appellant paid its price, the regular deed was executed in his favour by respondent No. 2, on 15.12.1962 and possession delivered in terms of the sale. A site-plan was submitted to the Executive Engineer of B & R Department for necessary sanction but the matter was delayed considerably. The appellant started construction and made considerable investment but during construction, the building period lapsed. Application for extension of time was granted and extension was allowed till 27.1.1963. Since the construction could not he completed within the extended time, the official of Municipal Committee stopped the appellant from raising construction. This led to serious conflict between the Municipal Committee and the appellant. In the meanwhile, respondent No. 2, cancelled the allotment of the appellant on 10.9.1966. Appellant went in appeal which was dismissed on 14.11.1967. Another appeal was filed before the Additional Commissioner, Sargodha which was dismissed on 9.11.1968. Revision petition tiled before the Joint Secretary, Communication and Works Department, Government of the then West Pakistan was allowed and the case was remanded to DRC. The DRC observed that the appellant's submission was correct and that the allotment should he restored by giving six months extension to complete the construction.
2. During the course of litigation the District. Allotment Committee, Lyallpur, allotted the plot to one Sardar Khan on 5.8;1967.
3. Appellant filed a declaratory suit, challenging order, dated 16.9.1960 of District Housing Officer, by which the allotment of appellant was cancelled. .The orders, dated 9.11.1968, 17.6.1969 and order dated' 10.2.1970 were also challenged.
4. The suit was dismissed by /the Civil Judge on 10.12.1974. Appeal tiled by the appellant ended in dismissal on 20.12.1974 with led to the tiling of the present appeal.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that during the pendency of the present litigation, the plot was allotted to Mian lhsan ul Haq who raised construction on the plot. Sadiq Mohy ud Din and Ihsan ul Haq were engaged in the litigation which stood concluded by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is submitted that though the appellant is not party in those proceedings and can maintain the present appeal yet with a view to avoid any embarising position for the Department, the appellant submitted an application to respondent No. 2 for alternative. Allotment as he was never at fault. Learned counsel submitted that after due scrutiny of the application, report was made in favour of the appellant for allotment of alternative plot. The Deputy Director proposed, vide letter, dated 2.1.1996, that the, representation of the appellant, for allotment of alternative residential plot, should he considered favourably as the plot was available in Samundari. The representation was sent to Director General who also recommended the case of the appellant. It is added that the matter was now pending with the Secretary Housing and the same has not been finally disposed of. Learned counsel submitted that the appellant will he satisfied if a direction is given to respondents Nos'. 1 and 2, for disposal of the application of the appellant for alternative plot, expeditiously and keeping in view the circumstances that the appellant was made to suffer unnecessary hardship for no fault of him.
6. Learned Assistant Advocate General submitted that he will have no objection if a direction for disposal of the application is issued.
7. The record reveals, that on application for alternative plot, the recommendations throughout were made in favour of the appellant. Even the Minister concerned also recommended that the appellant, should he accommodated as it was the case of hardship. The matter is pending with Secretary Housing and Physical Planning, Punjab. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case and also the fact that the appellant made entire payment, regular deed was executed in his favour, he fell prey of the arbitrary actions of certain functionaries, it will he appropriate that the pending application of the appellant for alternative plot he decided by the Secretary concerned, in accordance with law and expeditiously.
8. This, appeal is, therefore, disposed of with the direction that the pending application of the appellant, for the grant of alternative plot, shall he finally disposed of by respondents Nos. I and 2,..
Within two months by taking sympathetic view of the matter and also keeping in consideration the circumstances noted supra.