2002 PLP 759 (MLD)

Mian Muzaffar Hussain, Legal Advisor for Respondent Brief facts, out of which present writ petition arises are that 10% quota of plots was reserved by the, respondent in M.A. Jauhar Town, Lahore as discretionary quota of Chief Minister, Punjab. The petitioner submitted an application before the Chief Minister, Punjab. The Chief Minister vide order, dated 11‑5‑1989 directed the respondent to allot a plot measuring one Kanal to the petitioner in any Housing Scheme at Lahore. The respondent failed to allot a plot to the petitioner in term of direction of the Chief Minister. The petitioner being aggrieved, filed this writ petition.

2. Learned counsel of the petitioner submits that action of the respondent is without lawful authority. The petitioner has accrued vested right on account of order of the Chief Minister dated 11‑5‑1989. The respondent is duty bound to obey the direction of the Chief Minister. The respondent has no authority to withhold the allotment letter to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he relied upon "PLD 1971 SC 846" (Mukhtar Ahmad and 37 others v. Government of West Pakistan through Secretary, Food and Agriculture, Civil Secretariat, Lahore and another).

3. Learned counsel of the respondent submits that the respondent sent summary to Chief Minister on 22‑9‑1992 for formal approval/order of the Chief Minisfer for allotment of the plot to the petitioner. The Chief Minister did not approve the summary and raised the following objections:‑‑ "The former Chief Minister did not approve allotment of a one Kanal plot in favour of Mrs. Irshad Rehman widow of Muhammad Safdar Shakir vide Summary bearing No.LDA/PS/DEM/490 dated 25‑5‑1989 submitted by L.D.A. in response to this Secretariat's Letter No.SO‑III/CMS/AB 48/92‑2455/92352, dated ‑20‑3‑1992. This summary was seen by the Chief Minister, Punjab and returned as "'seen Thanks"'. The existing policy also does `not allow allotment of a plot beyond 5 Marlas." He further submits that the respondent has no authority to issue formal allotment letter to the petitioner without formal order of the Chief Minister. He further submits that according to the provisions of Lahore Development Authority Act, no property of L.D.A. can be allotted/sold except through open auction.

4. I have given my anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel for the parties and persued the record myself.

5. The petitioner did not accrue vested right on the basis of order of the Chief Minister dated 11‑5‑1989 as competent Authority has not issued any formal allotment letter of any plot to the petitioner, therefore, principle of locus poenitentiae is not attracted at all. Even otherwise, the respondent is duty bound to refer the matter to the Chief Minister, in case provisions of L. D. A. Act did not allow the respondent to allot plot to the petitioner in discretionary quota as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Zahid Akhtar's case in "PLD 1995 SC 530". The respondent has sent summary in terms of the order of the Chief Minister dated 11‑5‑1989 but the Chief Minister did not approve the same. In this view of the matter, the petitioner do not accrue any vested right, since order, dated 11‑5‑1989 is not in terms of the provisions of L. D. A. Act, 1975 and rules and regulations framed therein, therefore, the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the petitioner did not accrue any vested right as per principle laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jalal‑ud‑Din's case in "PLD 1992 SC 207". The judgment cited by the learned counsel of the petitioner is distinguishable on facts and law. There is no relevancy to resolve the present controversy.

6. It is pertinent to mention here that an interest is said to be vested when it is not subject to any condition precedent. In other words it means right which is complete and consummated so that nothing remains to be done to fix the right. The Hon'ble Supreme Court defined the word "vested right" which is free from contingencies in the following judgments:‑‑ Nabi Ahmad and another v. Home Secretary, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 others (PLD 1969 Supreme Court 599). Nazir Ahmad alias Jeera Guddi v. The State (1970 SCMR 7)

7. In view f what has been discussed above, the writ petition has no merit and .the same is dismissed.. However, 'in the interest of justice and fair play; the respondent is directed to return the amount received by the respondents from the petitioner preferably within one month without any interest/profit in case the petitioner is entitled under the law: The learned ‑ counsel for the respondent is directed to notify the order to the respondent for necessary action and compliance. Q.M.H./M.A.K./ A‑308/L Petition dismissed.