2001 PLP 762 (MLD)

The High Court took the view that writ petitioner Muhammad Saleem was lawful allottee of the plot in dispute and was entitled to its possession. About the notification on which reliance was placed by the present appellants the High Court held that it carried no validity. The writ petition was co4sequently accepted and direction prayed for was issued. The appeal has been filed with leave of the Court. We have heard Mr. Riaz Inqalabi in support of the appeal. Mr. Liaqat Ali Khan, learned counsel for the private respondent, Muhammad Saleem and Ch. Lal Hussain, the learned counsel for the Mirpur Development Authority, have also been heard. The respondent is a lawful allottee of the plot in dispute. Possession has not been handed over to him on the basis of a letter which is Annexure‑DA in the High Court file. It was issued on 18th June, 1985 front the Office of Chief Secretary. Through this letter the Chairman of the Mirpur Development Authority was informed that the Chief Executive had taken the decision that it will not be administratively correct to demolish the houses constructed by fifty‑eight families and to dispossess the said families, therefore, it will be appropriate to transfer the land to those in possession on prevalent price to be paid to the Mirpur Development Authority. It was further stated that the allotment of eight to ten allottees can be cancelled and they may be accommodated by allotting alternative plots. As stated the decision was taken by the Chief Executive on 18th June, 1985. More than 14 years have elapsed but no action in consequence of the decision of the Chief Executive has been taken. The allotment in favour of the respondents still subsists and is, therefore, valid. It was contended by Mr. Muhammad Riaz Inqalabi that the Mirpur Development Authority was bound to implement the decision of the Chief Executive because Regulation No.6(3) of the Mirpur Development Authority, Regulations, 1977 binds the authority to implement directives of the Government. Regulation No.6 runs as follows:‑‑ Disposal of Plots. ‑‑(1) The plots or farms in any estate may, be disposed of by the Authority in any one or more of the following methods:‑‑ (i) By allotment................................ (ii) By public auction of ??????????? (iii) By sale at .................................. (iv) By lease for a .............................. (2) In deciding upon the mode of disposal?????????.. (3) The Allotment Committee may also follow any directives given by the Government in connection with the disposal of plots etc. Under clause (3) reproduced above it is clear that directive can be given by the Government to the Allotment Committee in connection with the disposal of plots etc. This provision cannot be construed as lying down that plots already allotted can be cancelled by the Government "in any case the directive relied upon by the appellants was given to the M. N. not the `A Allotment Committee and is, therefore, not relevant. In any case the allotment in favour of the respondent made in 1978 remains unaffected. Needless to say allotment is a valuable right and it must be followed by possession. The Mirpur Development Authority is bound by law to hand over possession to an allottee within a reasonable time but the Authority has not performed its duty. Therefore, the High Court was right in issuing the direction that the respondent may be put in possession. The appeal has no force and is, therefore, dismissed. H.B.T./120/SC(AJ&K) ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal dismissed.