P L D 2007 Supreme Court 494 (PLP)
Environmental Planning Lahore and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN BHATTI — Respondent
| Citation | P L D 2007 Supreme Court 494 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Appellate Jurisdiction |
| Bench Members | Javed Iqbal, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ |
| Parties | Environmental Planning Lahore and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN BHATTI — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Disposal of Land by Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance (VI of 1998), (b) Disposal of Land by Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance (VI of 1998) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 2007 Supreme Court 494 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Disposal of Land by Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance (VI of 1998), (b) Disposal of Land by Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance (VI of 1998) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 2007 Supreme Court 494 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Appellate Jurisdiction bench comprising: Javed Iqbal, Abdul Hameed Dogar and Nasir-ul-Mulk, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 2007 Supreme Court 494 (PLP) (Environmental Planning Lahore and others — Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL KHAN BHATTI — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 4---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether by moving application for allotment of plot reserved against quota of journalists in the scheme would entitle them to claim allotment essentially; and whether provisions of Disposal of Land Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance, 1998, whereby no quota was reserved for any journalist and advocate etc. would be applicable to the case.
- Muhammad Riaz Lone, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent.
- (ii) Whether the provisions of the Disposal of Land Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance, 1998 whereby no quota has been reserved for any journalists and advocates etc. would be applicable in the case of appellant.
- 4. We have heard Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned A.A.-G. Punjab for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Riaz Lone, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
- 5. Learned A.A.-G. Punjab vehemently contended that no vested right had accrued in favour of respondent for allotment of the plot in question though his application was accepted. She further contended that Government withdrew the policy on 25-10-1993 through the Disposal of Land Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance, 1998 and no quota has been reserved for any category of claimants including journalists and Advocates etc. She further contended that respondent was not entitled for the allotment of plot out of the quota for journalists after the abolition of the same. According to her since no allotment letter was issued to respondent, therefore, no right accrued in his favour for the allotment of the plot. She also contended that Civil Petition No.253-L of 1997 was dismissed by this Court on 5-6-1997 but no law was declared or enunciated on the subject, therefore, question of allotment of the plots against reserved quota can be reconsidered/examined by this Court in view 'of the fact that scheme for allotment has been cancelled through Ordinance of 1998 except disabled persons no other category of professionals are entitled for the allotment of plots against reserved quota.
- 7. Admittedly respondent is working as correspondent in the Pakistan Press International (PPI) Samundari District Faisalabad who on 25-2-1990 applied for allotment of plot out of journalists' quota and deposited Rs.13,200 as 20% of the total price of plot measuring one kanal. His application was processed and on completion of formalities he was allotted Plot No.394 measuring one kanal out of the quota reserved for journalists on 8-2-1994 as such a vested right accrued in his favour. This Court in the case of Mehr Muhammad Amin, Advocate referred supra upheld the order of the learned High Court whereby respondent Advocate was allotted plot out of quota reserved for lawyers. It was also held therein that subsequent change in policy could not take away the vested right of allotment of plot in favour of respondent. The learned High Court while relying upon the earlier order passed by this Court in the case of Mehr Muhammad Amin (supra) directed appellants to allot plot to the respondent out of the quota reserved for journalists. In the instant case respondent applied for allotment of plot prior to the amendment in the policy as such vested right stood already accrued in his favour. Since respondent was found eligible for allotment of plot after completing formalities as such appellants cannot go back to their commitment on the pretext of change in the policy. Though argued at length yet learned A.A.-G Punjab has failed to point out any illegality or misreading in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. We also do not find any ground to take a different view earlier taken by this Court in the above referred case. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of any substance stands dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 4
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether by moving application for allotment of plot reserved against quota of journalists in the scheme would entitle them to claim allotment essentially; and whether provisions of Disposal of Land Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance, 1998, whereby no quota was reserved for any journalist and advocate etc. would be applicable to the case.
S. 4
Allotment against reserved quota
Deposit of dues
Non -issuance of allotment letter
Subsequent change in policy
Vested right, accrual of
Respondent being a journalist applied for a residential plot, he was found eligible for allotment and thus deposited 20% of the total price of plot but authorities denied issuance of allotment letter
High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction directed the authorities to issue allotment letter
Subsequent change in policy could not take away the vested right of allotment of plot in favour of respondent
High Court, while relying upon an earlier order passed by Supreme Court, directed the authorities to allot plot to respondent out of the quota reserved for journalists
Respondent applied for allotment of plot prior to amendment in the policy as such vested right stood already accrued in his favour
Respondent was found eligible for allotment of plot after completing formalities as such authorities could not go back on their commitment on the pretext of change in policy
Authorities failed to point out any illegality or misreading in the judgment passed by High Court warranting interference by Supreme Court
Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL HAMEED DOGAR, J.
This appeal with leave of this Court is directed against order dated 19-1-2001 passed learned Judge in Chambers of Lahore High Court, Lahore whereby Writ Petition No.7572 of 1998 filed by respondent was allowed.
2. Briefly stated facts giving rise to the filing of instant appeal are that appellant No.2 invited applications from journalists for allotment of residential plots of various sizes in Development Scheme No.II at Tehsil Samundari, District Faisalabad vide Memorandum No.S.O.(D-11)HP& EP-2-1/86, dated 23-12-1986. The respondent being a Correspondent of Pakistan Press International (PPI) applied for allotment of plot in the above scheme on 25-2-1990 and deposited 20% of the total price of the plot. The application of the respondent was processed and he was declared eligible for allotment of Plot No.394 measuring 1 kanal. Later on the appellants denied to issue formal allotment letter. Feeling aggrieved, respondent invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Lahore High Court, Lahore through Writ Petition No.7572 of 1998 which was allowed vide impugned order.
3. Leave to appeal was granted by this Court on 30-8-2001 to consider inter alia the following contentions: (i) Whether by moving an application for allotment of plot reserved against the quota of journalists in the scheme would entitle them to claim the allotment essentially; and (ii) Whether the provisions of the Disposal of Land Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance, 1998 whereby no quota has been reserved for any journalists and advocates etc. would be applicable in the case of appellant.
4. We have heard Ms. Afshan Ghazanfar, learned A.A.-G. Punjab for the appellants and Mr. Muhammad Riaz Lone, learned Advocate Supreme Court for the respondent at length and have gone through the record and proceedings of the case in minute particulars.
5. Learned A.A.-G. Punjab vehemently contended that no vested right had accrued in favour of respondent for allotment of the plot in question though his application was accepted. She further contended that Government withdrew the policy on 25-10-1993 through the Disposal of Land Development Authorities (Regulation) Ordinance, 1998 and no quota has been reserved for any category of claimants including journalists and Advocates etc. She further contended that respondent was not entitled for the allotment of plot out of the quota for journalists after the abolition of the same. According to her since no allotment letter was issued to respondent, therefore, no right accrued in his favour for the allotment of the plot. She also contended that Civil Petition No.253-L of 1997 was dismissed by this Court on 5-6-1997 but no law was declared or enunciated on the subject, therefore, question of allotment of the plots against reserved quota can be reconsidered/examined by this Court in view 'of the fact that scheme for allotment has been cancelled through Ordinance of 1998 except disabled persons no other category of professionals are entitled for the allotment of plots against reserved quota.
6. On the other hand learned counsel appearing for the respondent supported the impugned order and contended that on 25-2-1990 respondent deposited a sum of Rs.13,600 being the 20% of the total price of the plot reserved for journalists and after processing his application he was allotted Plot No.394 measuring 1 kanal on 8-2-1994. He further contended that after determination of eligibility by the allotment committee a right stood vested in favour of respondent and by introduction of new policy of allotment or any subsequent change in the policy could not take away that right. According to him, this Court in the case of Secretary to Government of Punjab, Housing Physical and Environmental Planning Department, Lahore v. Muhammad Ismail Khan Bhatti (C.P. No.1266-L of 2001) involving similar controversy observed as under: "Since the respondent was found to be eligible to the allotment of the plot and as a matter of fact had to be 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. Admittedly respondent is working as correspondent in the Pakistan Press International (PPI) Samundari District Faisalabad who on 25-2-1990 applied for allotment of plot out of journalists' quota and deposited Rs.13,200 as 20% of the total price of plot measuring one kanal. His application was processed and on completion of formalities he was allotted Plot No.394 measuring one kanal out of the quota reserved for journalists on 8-2-1994 as such a vested right accrued in his favour. This Court in the case of Mehr Muhammad Amin, Advocate referred supra upheld the order of the learned High Court whereby respondent Advocate was allotted plot out of quota reserved for lawyers. It was also held therein that subsequent change in policy could not take away the vested right of allotment of plot in favour of respondent. The learned High Court while relying upon the earlier order passed by this Court in the case of Mehr Muhammad Amin (supra) directed appellants to allot plot to the respondent out of the quota reserved for journalists. In the instant case respondent applied for allotment of plot prior to the amendment in the policy as such vested right stood already accrued in his favour. Since respondent was found eligible for allotment of plot after completing formalities as such appellants cannot go back to their commitment on the pretext of change in the policy. Though argued at length yet learned A.A.-G Punjab has failed to point out any illegality or misreading in the impugned judgment warranting interference by this Court. We also do not find any ground to take a different view earlier taken by this Court in the above referred case. Resultantly, the appeal being devoid of any substance stands dismissed with no order as to costs. M.H./G-17/S Petition dismissed.