' Through this single order I intend to dispose of Writ Petitions bearing Nos.5386, 5598, 5596 and 10675 of 1992.
2. Facts mentioned in the Writ Petition No,10675 are that the petitioner Sayeed Mukhtar Ahmad is allottee of Plot No,9/64 and petitioner No,2 namely Shaukat Ali is allottee of Plot No,8/64 out of Sodhi Wal Housing Scheme laid in the year 1954 who got the allotment of the aforesaid quarters each measuring 4-1/2 Marlas with the representation and attraction, being situated in front of vacant plot of water works being open space. It is also mentioned that there was a Pacca approach road to the aforesaid quarters, 20 feet wide with all amenities and facilities attached thereto, provided under the allotment order and conveyance deed executed by the Housing Department. Both the petitioned in the said writ petition claimed that after execution of the conveyance deed by the Housing Department, possession was taken by the respondents and they have constructed their houses thereon. Grievance of the petitioners was that on 28-1-1990 Chief Minister of Punjab approved the allotments of 4-1/2 Marlas plot to Muhammad Naeem, Muhammad Younas, Mst. Naziran Bibi, Sabir Hussain, Afzal Ahmad and Iqbal Fasih respondents, on asking of local M.N.A. Who exercised his political pressure and influence in violation of the procedural laws and terms and conditions of the allotment rules, heilce a letter in the name of Deputy Director, Housing Scheme was issued. Claim of the petitioners, is that direction was subsequently issued by the Government by which construction over the plot reserved for water works has been stopped and it was ordered that no construction can be raised on this plot. The new wall was also ordered to be removed.
2-A. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that violation of rules and has proceeded to allot the plots in favour of respondents Nos.6--11 under the orders and desires of local M.N.A., therefore, the orders of allotments are void and illegal. He further contends that the Government had no authority to reopen the scheme. Respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 had no authority to change a reserved plot of water works into residential plot under the desires of M.N.A. He further contends that respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 have misused the directive of the Chief Minister and instead of allotting the plot out of some Scheme which is under execution have proceeded to carve out the plot from a reserved quota of Sodhiwal Scheme with mala fide intention affecting the right of passage, air, sun and other amenities and facilities attached to the residential quarters of the petitioners and other residents of the Colony. In support of his contention learned counsel for the petitioners, further contends that the Government has already received a calculated reserved price keeping in view the amenities and facilities attached thereto, therefore, they should have summoned the petitioners, and heard them prior to the passing of order of allotment in favour of respondents Nos.6 to 11 hence they have committed error. Learned counsel for the petitioners finally contends that the orders of allotment passed by the respondents Nos.2, 3 and 5 are illegal, unwarranted and without jurisdiction hence the same are liable to be set aside.
3. In Writ Petition No,5386 claim of the petitioner is that on the directive of Chief Minister, Punjab Lahore petitioner was allotted a residential Plot No,64/12 ineasuring 4-1/2 Marlas in Sodhi Wal Colony, Multan Road, Lahore and all the legal formalities were fulfilled. Subsequently the petitioner raised some constructions over the said plot but thereafter the local M.N.A. In order to dispossess the petitioner and to accommodate his supporters managed to issue a direction to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 to take back the possession of the said plot after demolition of the boundary wall of construction raised thereon. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 directed the petitioner to leave the said plot, hence this writ petition. The petitioner, however, claimed that action of the respondents is illegal and unlawful and the respondents are liable to be restrained from such acts.
4. Same is the situation in Writ Petition No,5596 and Writ Petition No,5598.
5. Comments were called for from the respondents. The Deputy Director, Housing and Physical Planning Division, Lahore has admitted the fact that plot was allotted to the petitioner but Minister for Housing and Physical Planning has passed direction on the same application as under:- {{URDU TEXT}} ' However, the Deputy Director admitted that the construction on the plot has been stopped being raised prior to approval of building plans but the allotment has not been cancelled.
6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents attached with these writ petitions, and also comments filed by the Housing and Physical Department. Admittedly the petitioners in Writ Petition Nos.5386, 5598, 5596 of 1992 are in possession of plots measuring 4- 1/2 Marlas according to the comments filed by the Deputy Director Housing and Physical Department. Facts mentioned in writ petitions are admitted to be corrected by the Deputy Director.
It was also admitted by the department that direction was issued by the Chief Minister for removing the superstructure on the plots in question but allotment in favour of the petitioners was not cancelled hence the allotment of the plots is still in favour of the petitioners. This fact h been admitted by the Deputy Director as the order passed by the Minister has no legal sanctity as the petitioners who have been allotted and delivered possession of the plots cannot be restrained frbm constructing their house on the said plots in accordance with law merely on the direction of the Minister which has no legal value. The Minister cannot pass such direction without due process of law. Firstly Minister has no authority to interfere into possession of the petitioner in such a way and cannot pass such order being Minister of a Department. His direction has no legal backing hence the orders passed on the direction of Minister are set aside. Even otherwise these orders have been passed without hearing the petitioners as the petitioners were allotted the said plots and possession was delivered to them, they made payment and became lawful possessors hence it became past and closed transaction and no action can be taken retrospectively. The orders passed on the direction of the Minister without hearing the petitioner is not lawful and the same have no legal sanctity. Hence the writ petitions bearing Nos.1386/92, 5596/92 and 5598 of 1992 are accepted, and respondents are restrained from demolishing of the construction raised by the petitioner on the plots.
7. As far as Writ Petition No,10675/92 is concerned the allotment has been made from a specific place, reserved or water works the respondents are duty-bound to provide facilities to the residents of the Scheme and as the plots have been allotted to the respondents Nos.6 to 11 by the Chief Minister and they had paid the priee of the plots and possession have been delivered to them, they are in possession of the plot from the very day of allotment and delivery of possession, their allotments cannot be set aside on the ground urged by the writ petitioner. However, the official respondents are duty-bound to provide facility to the residents of the vicinity.
8. Secretary, Housing and Physical Planning is accordingly directed to look into grievance of the petitioners and provide space, if possible for the water works scheme. The other grounds taken by the petitioners that their right of air and sun etc., has been infringed, the respondents have been allotted plots and their allotments cannot be cancelled on this score. The petitioners in this writ petition (10675 of 1992) have failed to make out any case for cancellation of allotment in favour of the. Respondents Nos.6 to 11. This petition has no merits and the same is dismissed.