' In the Industrial Estate, Gujrat, set up by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation i,e, respondents No,2, plot measuring 3700 sq. Ft. Was leased out to the petitioner for a period of 99 years vide lease deed, dated 22-1-1986. It appears that sometime later the Small Industries Corporation decided to grant proprietary rights to the lessees of the estate,, in pursuance whereof, the petitioner was asked to apply for. The grant of proprietary rights to the Corporation. This was through communication addressed to the petitioner, dated 19-5-1986. It is the case of the petitioner that requisite application was made by the petitioner who paid the dues and a Certificate, dated 14-7-1986 was issued by the said corporation to this effect. According to the petitioner, he had taken steps for the construction and erection of the factory when a general ban was imposed by the Corporation on any construction in the Small Indutries Estate, Gujrat as a result wherof, the petitioner was asked to stop the construction on 30-12-1986. On 23-8-1997, a meeting was convened in which the functionaries of Punjab Small Industries Corporation, the District Management Gujrat and Members from the business community of the Small Industries Estate, Gujrat participated. Minutes of such a meeting were circulated vide communication, dated 30-8-1997 that "roads, sewerage and other civic services are being transferred to Municipal Committee, Gujrat." It was further decided that "PSIC will provide all type of services to the allottees of SIE-I, Gujrat other than civic services. Municipal Committee, Gujrat shall adopt PSIC building By Laws (already notified) and will not change them at any stage so the basic principles regarding establishment of SIE-I Gujrat are not disturbed." Soon thereafter, the Administrator, Municipal Committee, Gujrat sent a communication, dated 8-10-1997 to the petitioner that the Municipal Committee had taken over the charge of Punjab Small Industrial Estate and that the plot leased out to the petitioner "was needed by the Municipal Committee for public use", he was thus asked to show-cause why the lease of the said plot be not cancelled. This was repelled to by the petitioner resisting the move of the Municipal Committee. On the other side, while the proceedings for cancellation of the lease had been launched by the Municipal Committee, the Small Industries Corporation approved the building plans of the petitioner vide letter, dated . 17-10-1997. It was, however, on 15-1-1998, that the Adminis tator, Municipal Committee, Gujrat, respondent No,1, proceeded to cancel the lease of the petitioner which order has been assailed through this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution by the petitioner.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel that the industrial plot was leased out to the petitioner by the Small Industries Corporation through a registered lease deed, dated 22-1-1986, the same could not be cancelled and that respondent No,1 had no lawful authority to cancel the plot as the same had absolutely vested in the petitioner for which he had paid the price and conditions of the grant had been compelled with by him. It is further contended that it was a mala fide move on the part of respondent No,1 who has been changing his stance from time to time.
3. The learned counsel for respondent No,1, the Municipal Committee, supports the order, passed by the Committee and contends that the allotment of the disputed plot to the petitiorier was in violation of the master plan and was rightly cancelled. According to him, the site of the plot was at the junction of different roads, the same was meant for beautification of the roads junction and effective control of the traffic." The Small Industries Corporation has, however, supported the petitioner and has admitted that the proprietary rights of the plot were granted to the petitioner and there was no violation of the master plan.
4. From the above resume of the factual background, it is established that the plot in dispute indeed was leased out to the petitioner by the Small Industries Corporation through a registered deed, dated 22-1-1986, the possession whereof had been delivered to the petitioner, who made some investment in developing the same. He had paid the necessary dues and proprietary rights had been granted. It was, for the first time, on 8-10-1997, that the Municipal Committee called upon the petitioner why the plot should not be cancelled from his name as the same was needed for public use whose authority in the matter was objected to by the petitioner. The development and establishment of the Industrial Estate was carried out by the Small Industries Corporation which had been dealing with the plots, situated in the said estate, and had accorded approval for construction by sanctioning the plans. It is, thus evident that the authority competent in the matter was the Small Industrial Corporation who has taken this position 'before this Court as well. Suffice it to mention that proprietary rights had been granted to the petitioner by the said Corporation. It is worth noting that right from the establishment of the said Industrial Etate, till the year, 1997 Municipal Committee never took up the matter with the Small Industries Corporation that the plot in dispute was located at a site which should not have been leased out or that the same was needed for public use. Such an abrupt action against the petitioner smacks of something else.
5. After the execution of the registered least deed, it was only for the parties thereto to act in accordance with the conditions of the said lease, none else had jurisdiction in the matter to take any step which could have the effect of denuding the petitioner of his rights in the said plot. The Municipal Committee which had been charged with the functions of maintaining the roads, sewerage and other civic services could not take any such step as would have disturbed the establishment of the Small Industries Corporation even according to the decisions of the meeting, dated 23-8-1997. The Administator of the Municipal Committee thus acted illegally and without lawful authority in the matter. Reference in this context may be made to Anjuman-e-Ahmadiya v.
The Deputy Commissioner, Sargodha and others (PLD 1966 SC 639) and The Majlis-i-Intizamia, Jamia Masjid, Ghularn Muhammad Abad Colony, Lyallpur v. The Secretary to Government of West Pakistan, Communicatoin and Works Department Lahore (PLD 1975 SC 355).
6. There is also substance in the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that reason, mentioned in notice, dated 8-10-1997 (for cancellation of the lease) was different than made basis in the order impugned, dated 15-1-1998. It reflects inconsistencies on the part of the Municipal Committee in the matter. Different Pleas were being taken by the Municipal Committee at different stages, reference in this context may be made to the position taken before this Court that the plot, had been transferred in violation of the master plan. A certificate, dated 17-3-1998, issued by the Small. Industries Corporation, Gujrat has been produced certifying that the space allotted to the petitioner was "not part and parcel of the road as per Master Plan". Suffice it to observe that public functionaries and Departments of the Government are expected to act in such manner that their actions and conduct should itself have reflection of fairness and justness. To deprive some one of his property except by following due course of law is not contemplated by the Constitution and the law. Any deviation from the observance of due process of law cannot be countenanced.
For the reasons, stated above, the order impugned is not sustainable in law; same is declared as unlawful and is of no legal effect. The petition is accepted accordingly. No order as to costs.