' Through this Constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islainic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have called in question the validity of impugned denotification dated 19-6-1994 issued by the Director General, Government of the Punjab, Local Government and Rural Development Department, Lahore being illegal, without lawful authority, based on mala fides and against the rights of the petitioners.
2. Facts of the case, in a narrow compass, given rise to this petition, are that the petitioners are residing in Kachi Abadi Colony, Tehsil Jahanian, District Khanewal since 1970-71. In the year 1985, the then Prime Minister of Pakistan announced the policy known as Jinnah Abadi Colony and it was decided that any Kachi Abadi which is consisting of 40 houses be declared as Kachi Abadi and instructions for allotment of Kachi Abadies were also issued on 26-6-1986 whereupon a survey report was prepared and it was recommended by the Chairman Town Committee Jahanian and the Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal that the Kachi Abadi situated near the Slaughter House, Jahanian is consisting of 41 houses. On the basis of aforesaid report the respondent No.1 notified the area mentioned above as Kachi Abadi and the Board of Revenue, Punjab also recommended mutation in favour of the Local Council for further allotment to the residents. After fulfilling all the requirements, the Chairman, Town Committee, Jahanian issued allotment orders in favour of the residents of that area and the proprietary rights were transferred to the residents. The petitioners and others constructed houses and they are residing therein. They applied to the Town Committee, Jahanian for the soling of the streets, gas and electricity whereupon roads were constructed, the gas lines were provided and the electrification was also made, when by a fictitious inquiry the Deputy Commissioner, Khanewal denotified the above mentioned colony whereupon the petitioners submitted applications alleging therein that the denotification may be withdrawn which were declined, hence this petition.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that the impugned denotification is against law and based on mala fide; that the petitioners have made payment, constructed their houses and are living therein; that once an order is announced and implemented the same cannot be cancelled without being unheard. Further contended that the impugned order is illegal, without lawful authority and unwarranted by law and the same is liable to set aside. Reliance is placed on 1997 SCM R 15.
4. On the contrary the representatives of the respondents have admitted that the petitioners have acquired their proprietary rights after payment of Government dues.
5. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the record.
6. It evinces from record that the petitioners are allottees of the aforesaid Kachi Abadi and in this respect allotment letters were also issued in their names in the year 1988 by the Town Committee, Jahanian and as conceded by the representatives of the respondent the petitioners after payment of legal dues have also constructed, their houses and are living therein. Moreover electricity meters and gas lines have also been installed. Learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of his arguments contended that principle of locus poenitentiae was although available to the authorities whereby any order which was made by mistake could be undone yet such order could not be withdrawn or rescinded once it had taken legal effect and created certain rights in favour of any individual. In this view of the matter, in my view, the petitioners could not be held to be at fault.
It is well-settled law that once a right is created in favour of a litigant, in due course of time, it cannot at all be taken back arbitrary. In the case in hand the notification for allotment has been implemented in its letter and spirit and the subsequent denotification does not stand in the eye of law being illegal and against the rights of the petitioners.
7. Consequently, for what has been discussed above and relying upon the aforesaid judicial precedent, the instant petition is allowed. $. Resultantly, the impugned denotification is set aside and subsequent proceedings thereupon are hereby quashed.