1988 PLP 1326 (SCMR)
AZIZUDDIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN POF BOARD WAH CANTT. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1326 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S.A. Nusrat, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ |
| Parties | AZIZUDDIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN POF BOARD WAH CANTT. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board Daily Order, Part I |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1326 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board Daily Order, Part I as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1326 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S.A. Nusrat, Ali Hussain Qazilbash and Mian Burhanuddin Khan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1326 (SCMR) (AZIZUDDIN KHAN — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN POF BOARD WAH CANTT. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, Advocate. Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.2:
- Date of hearing: 10th October, 1987.
- Muhammad Afzal Siddiqi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Manzoor Elahi Qureshi, Advocate. Supreme Court and Imtiaz Muhammad Khan, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.2:
Headnotes / Summary
(From the order of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench dated 27-10-1986 passed in W.P. No.280 of 1985). --Para. 3(c)--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)--Allotment of plot of land in a scheme in the Cantonment area--Eligibility for- Interpretation of terms for allotment--Petitioner was allotted provisionally a plot of land in a scheme in the Cantonment--Allotment cancelled subsequently because he owned a plot in Islamabad and was held ineligible--Relevant prescribed condition for allotment being that. applicant should not have been allotted a residential plot in any Defence Housing Scheme or Cantonment in his own name or in the name of his wife/children--Leave to appeal granted to examine contention that the said condition in terms did not apply to the case of petitioner because the plot held by him in Islamabad was not acquired by him in any Scheme but on payment of prevalent market value to the Capital Development Authority.
Judgment & Decree
S.A. NUSRAT, J.‑‑The petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot of land in a scheme known as "Second Extension of Lala Rukh Colony No.2, Wah Cantt." as an ex‑employee of the Ordnance Factory, and his case was recommended and pursuant thereto he was provi sionally allotted Plot No.F‑229. The allotment was, however, subse quently cancelled on the ground that the petitioner was already holding a Plot No.768 in G‑10/1 Sector, Islamabad, and thus, he was ineligible for allotment of a plot in the aforesaid scheme by virtue of the bar contained in paragraph 3(c) of Daily Order Part I dated 17‑3‑1984 issued by the Pakistan Ordnance Factories Board. The said clause provided that an officer, who owned a plot or house in his name or in the name of his wife/husband or dependent children in any housing scheme in Pakistan, will not be eligible for allotment of a plot in the Lala Rukh scheme. The petitioner made a representation before the President, Cantonment Board, which was turned down as per letter dated 17‑2‑1985. 2. The petitioner thereupon filed a constitutional petition in the High Court challenging such decision which was dismissed as per impugned judgment. 3. In support of the petition, it was contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that; (i) in the application for allotment, the declaration sought to be made read as under:‑‑ (a) I have never been allotted a residential plot in any Defence dousing Scheme or Cantonment in my own name or in the name of my wife/children. (b) (c) ...... .................. and (ii) paragraph 3(c) ibid also, in terms, did not apply to the case of the petitioner because the plot in Islamabad was not acquired by him under any scheme, but on payment of prevalent market value to the Capital Development Authority. 4. The above contentions need examination and leave is accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,000. The petition will be heard on the present) record. M.I.A./A‑227/S Leave granted.