1997 PLP 1606 (SCMR)

IJAZ NISAR, J.‑‑‑Mehr Muhammad Amin, Advocate Samundri (respondent) applied for the allotment of a residential plot out of the lawyers quota in the Scheme known as Area Development Scheme No.II, Tehsil Samundri, District Faisalabad. After scrutinizing the respondent's application, the District Housing Committee, Faisalabad allotted Plot No.407 to him. It later transpired that the said plot was reserved for the Government servants and as such could not be allotted to him. The latter applied for the correction of the number of plots but before another plot could be allotted to him, there was a change in the policy of allotment of plots whereby all quotas were abolished. Resultantly, the respondent could not be allotted any alternate plot. Consequently, he filed Constitutional petition in the Lahore High Court which was accepted on 19‑6‑1996 with a direction to the Housing and Physical Planning Department to allot a plot to the respondent out of the quota allocated for the lawyers.

2. The Government of Punjab, Housing Physical and Environmental Department, Lahore filed an Intra‑Court Appeal against the order of the learned Single Judge which was dismissed on 17‑11‑1996, The relevant observations of the Appellate Court were as under:‑‑ "Be that as it may, even if there be any merit in the contention it hardly advances their case inasmuch as we are of the view that on account of the acceptance of the respondent's application for allotment after determination of his eligibility by the allotment committee a right stood vested in him and subsequent change in policy could not take away that right. Furthermore, the appellant was unable to refute the fact that even after the formation of new policy the allotment of the plots by the appellant Government is still continuing and there is no reason as to why on the basis of said policy which is not being followed by the appellants themselves, the respondent should be denied the plot allotted to him out of lawyers quota. No ground for interference in the impugned judgment has been made out."

3. Still not feeling satisfied, Secretary to Government of Punjab, Housing Physical and Environmental Planning Department has filed civil petition for special leave to appeal before this Court.

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has reiterated the submissions earlier made before the High Court. The main plank of his argument is that mere recommendation by a District Housing Committee was not binding on the Government and its sole duty was to process applications for allotment of quota plots and that the respondent was not entitled to allotment of a plot out of the lawyers quota after abolition of the quotas. This point was also raised before the High Court in the Intra‑Court Appeal and the High Court observed that "it appears to us that the powers of allotment stood vested in the District Housing Committee and the approval of the Government was only formal in nature primarily with a view to keep the Government informed of the allotment".

5. It may be worthwhile to mention that when the matter was being argued before the learned Single Judge, Syed Naeem Saqlain, A.A.‑G. on instructions made a statement in writing that the Government was‑ pre pared to rectify the mistake and consented to the acceptance of the writ petition in terms of the prayer made therein.

6. Since the respondent was found to be eligible to the allotment of plot and as a matter of fact had been allotted a plot, the petitioner cannot go back upon his commitment and any change in the policy could not be applied retrospectively to the respondent.

7. The learned High Court has exhaustively dept "Wit all the points in controversy and no interference is called for with the orders passed by 'it. Hence the petition is dismissed and the leave is refused. A.A./S‑8/S. Petition dismissed.