' SABIHUDDIN AHMED, J.---The petitioner are a registered Society engaged in running a school. Upon a resolution of the Governing Body of the respondent No,1 (KDA) dated 1-2-1986, they were to be allotted an amenity plot, but delivery of the plot was not effected for several years. The petitioner approached the Provincial Ombudsman who have an order dated 31-1-1994 directed that the resolution be implemented and Plot No,ST-14, Block 13, KDA Scheme No,36, Gulistan-e-Jauhar be allotted to the petitioner. However, though an allotment order was issued on 13-9-1995, the same was cancelled when the Director (Planning and Urban Design), KDA reported that the area of land required was not available as part of it had been allotted to the Pakistan Atomic Energy Commission and the remaining had been auctioned, thereupon the KDA allotted another (and a larger plot) bearing No,ST-14, Block 2, measuring about 3749 sq. Yards to the petitioner vide allotment order, dated 28-10-1995.
2. It appears that the petitioner after obtaining possession of this plot in Block 2, had started raising construction thereon. Nevertheless he also moved the KDA alleging that the substituted plot was of lesser value and they should be compensated. It seems that by letter, dated 19-12-1996 the KDA proposed that two amenity plots i,e, (i) Plot No,ST-19, Block 14 and (ii) Plot ST-12, Block 14, were available and agreed to allot one of them to the petitioner. Apparently the petitioner opted for the former plot measuring about 3000 sq. Yards. They also approached the Provincial Mohtasib once again who by order, dated 10-3-1997 directed KDA to abide by their offer and allot one of the plots chosen by the petitioner to them.
3. An allotment order for the aforesaid plot was issued on 23-8-1997 and according to the petitioner possession was also delivered. The factum of delivery of possession, however, is denied by the respondent/KDA. Be that as it may it appeared that some area from this Plot (ST-19 Block 14) had been carved out and allotted. For residential purposes and only an area of 1835.55 square yards remained available. Accordingly the petitioner was requested vide letter, dated 22-4-1998 either to accept an alternate amenity plot in the same scheme or to accept the available area of 1835.55 sq. Yards in Plot No,19, Block 14. The petitioner did not accept either of the two options and by letter, dated 19-6-1998 pointed out that according to the amended Article 52 of the KDA Order, no amenity plot could be converted to or utilized for any other purpose. It was, therefore, suggested that alternate residential plot be allotted to the allottees of the carved out plots and the entire amenity plot be given to the petitioner. At this stage it may also be pointed out that even after having received the allotment order, dated 23-8-1997 in respect of Plot No,ST-19, Block 14, the petitioner executed registered lease with the KDA in respect of Plot No,ST-14, Block 2. Having not obtained any favourable response pursuant to their letter, dated 19-6-1998 the petitioner have approached this Court.
4. Mr. Dasti Muhammad Ibrahim, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that in view of the amendment in Article 52-A of the KDA Order through Sindh Act XXIII of 1994 an amenity plot could not be converted or utilized for any other purpose. Therefore, carving out certain portions of the plot originally allotted to the petitioner and subsequent allotment to other persons for residential purpose was ab initio illegal. Learned counsel is indeed correct to this extent as the legal position is undisputed and we must strongly disapprove such action on the part of the respondent.
5. Nevertheless it ought to be kept in view that under Article 199 of the Constitution this Court exercises an equitable jurisdiction and no relief can be granted to a party for its unjust enrichment.
Amenity plots are allotted at substantially lower rates than their true market value for rendition of services for the general benefit of people and not for enriching allottees. Admittedly the petitioner had already been allotted a plot in Block 2 and a registered lease has also been executed in their favour. If they felt that this plot was in an isolated area and did not suit their requirement they could refuse to accept it and seek allotment of a mere suitable plot. Evidently they took possession of the said plot raised construction and are presently running a school. At the same time they moved the Ombudsman, seeking allotment of an additional plot by way of compensation. The Ombudsman passed an order requiring the KDA to allot an additional plot. Even after issuance of allotment order, they never bothered to surrender the plot allotted earlier and are now protesting against reduction of size of the later plot.
6. We are constrained to observe that the petitioner appears to be grabbing property under the garb of providing public services. The equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution cannot be invoked for allowing them to do so. As it is they have already been treated far more generously than they deserve and the possibility of collusion of some KDA officials cannot be altogether ruled out. At the same time there is no justification on the part of the KDA to allot parts of amenity plot for residential purposes in flagrant defiance of law.
This calls for taking corrective measures and punishing those responsible for abuse of public power.
7. For the foregoing reasons we would dismiss this petition with special costs of Rs,5,000 which will be deposited in the High Court Bar Library Account. At the same time we would direct the Director- General KDA to cause an inquiry conducted into scam and take appropriate measures for ensuring compliance with law and punishing those responsible for its defiance. Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director-General, KDA who may submit a compliance report within three months.
' The above are the reasons for the short order announced in Court on 22-3-2001.