1997 PLP 1330 (CLC)

Syed Ghulam Abbas Bokhari petitioner, claims protection of possession over a quarter allegedly allotted to him by respondents Nos. 1 and 2, as a civil servant, through this Constitution petition.

2. Report and parawise comments have been received from respondents Nos. l and 2, wherein the stance taken is that the allotment of the quarter No. 32‑A Poonch House Colony, Lahore was cancelled from the petitioner's name, therefore, neither his possession can be protected nor he can raise any grievance regarding deduction of the rent from his salary for the period during which he has illegally occupied the quarter in question.

3. Mr. Abid Saqi, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of the petitioner, Rana Naeem Sarwar, A.A.‑G has appeared on behalf of respondents Nos. l and 2, and Mr. Muhammad Aslam Awan, Advocate, has entered appearance on behalf of respondent No. 3. ,

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of cancellation of the allotment is fabricated and ante‑dated and that respondent No. 3 has procured allotment of the quarter by concealment of facts as he owns a house in Lahore hence, was not qualified for the allotment of the quarter in question, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of relief as prayed for.

5. As against the above‑argument, learned counsel for the respondents have contended that the allotment of the petitioner having already been cancelled, his possession of the quarter is illegal, therefore, is not entitled to the grant of relief and further that the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of cancellation is ante‑dated and fabricated is incorrect, imaginary and is without any lawful basis and justification, hence, the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of any relief from this Court.

6. I have considered the report and parawise comments as well as y arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the parties. Admittedly, the allotment in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled, which order is still in the field. Argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the said order is ante‑dated and fabricated cannot be accepted merely on the basis of a bald assertion, as it is a question of fact and can only be resolved by recording of evidence, which exercise is not possible in this petition. Even otherwise there attaches a presumption of regularity to the orders passed by the public functionaries and there is no palpable reason as to why the respondents should ante‑date or fabricate the order of cancellation of the petition's allotment. Presently there is a competition of taking possession of the quarter in question r between an allottee and a person whose allotment has been cancelled, therefore, protection of the petitioner's possession would amount to acting in aid oil injustice which is not possible under the law. The possession of the petitioner presently being unauthorised, he is not entitled to the grant of discretionary relief from this Court nor he is possessed of any lawful title or interest to retain possession of the quarter in question.

7. Resultantly, I see no force in this Constitution petition, hence, the same is dismissed in limine. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ refused. H.B.T./G‑8/L ‑Petition dismissed.