Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the Administrator Municipal Corporation, Sargodha, formed a Housing Scheme in the years 1979-1980 and the allotment of land was made for the purpose of such scheme by the Government. Mulla Abdul Aziz, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents applied for the plot in scheme; Plot No,194, was allotted to him; he is also stated to have deposited Rs,1,000 through two inkalments by Rs,500 each .However before the scheme could be finally implemented, the Deputy Commissioner Sargodha, vide order dated 15-2-1982 cancelled the allotment of the aforesaid land. This is the admitted position on the record that on account of the above, the scheme was quashed.
2. Mulla Abdul Aziz, died on 3-10-1987 and in the year 1989, employees of the M.0 Sargodha, formed a society and purchased certain land for the purpose of housing scheme and this included the land covered by the erstwhile abandoned scheme. Out of this scheme, the plots were allotted to the members of the society, when the legal heirs of Mulla Abdul Aziz, brought a suit for declaration that they are entitled to the Plot No,194, which was allotted to their father by the administrator and for which, he had deposited certain amounts and no notice was given to Mula Abdul Aziz, etc. before cancellation of plot particularly, when the possession was also delivered to deceased. The suit was contested by the petitioner, issues were framed; parties were put to trial and learned Civil Judge, vide judgment and decree dated 4-9-1996, dismissed the suit, holding that their predecessor was not the allottee of the Plot, bearing No,194, Mulla Abdul Aziz, was not the member of the Cooperative Society formed by the employees and therefore, the plaintiffs have no entitlement to the plot in question. Aggrieved, respondents/plaintiffs, preferred an appeal, which has been accepted; judgment and decree of the trial Court, has been reversed and the suit of the plaintiffs have been allowed on 14-4-2000.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the scheme earlier formed by the administrator because of the cancellation of the allotment of the land by the D.C., stood quashed and therefore, any allotment made to Mulla Abdul Aziz, in the previous schejne, was of no avail.
4. Conversely, the learned counsel for the respondents though has admitted that earlier, scheme was quashed but maintains that because no notice was given to Mulla Abdul Aziz, about cancellation of his allotment and the possession also remained with his legal heirs; subsequent scheme includes the land earlier given Plot No,194, therefore, the earlier allotment to Mulla Abdul Aziz, remained intact.
5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly earlier scheme formed by the Administrator, was quashed, when allotment of the land was cancelled by the D.C. on 15-2-1982, therefore, any allotment made to Abdul Aziz, under the previous scheme, stood automatically cancelled, subsequently, employees of the M.C. formed cooperative society in the year 1989 and by that time, Mulla Abdul Aziz, has alrady died, resultantly, he could not become the member of the society entitling him to any new allotment. The society purchased the land for the purpose of new scheme and obviously when the allotment in favour of Mulla Abdul Aziz had vanished, because of the quashment of the previous scheme, his legal heirs could not claim any entitlement to the plot in question; the Lower Appellate Court has ignored all these important aspects of the matter, which go to very root of the case, viza-viz the cause of action and locus standi of the respondents.
In the light of above, this petition is allowed; the impugned judgment and decree of the Appellate Court is set aside and that of the learned trial Court, is upheld.