2003 PLP 727 (CLC)

‑‑‑‑Art. 199(1)(a)(i)‑‑‑ Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3‑‑‑Writ of mandamus, issuance of‑‑‑Petitioner alongwith others sought direction in Constitutional petition in the nature of mandamus to Authority to allot residential plot at the old Thal Development Authority rates‑‑‑High Court had come to the conclusion that in view of the Policy, petitioner could not be held to he entitled to grant of allotment of plot in question‑‑‑According to Policy referred by High Court, land, building and plots in Thal Mandi Towns in occupation of Government were to be transferred free of costs to occupants thereof while some quarters in various towns were to be transferred free of costs to District Administration for pool accommodation and remaining plots/houses were to be disposed of through open auction‑‑‑Policy seemed to be fair and did not infringe any principle of law or equity‑‑‑Petition otherwise filed after 13 years of unexplained delay, suffering from laches, was rightly dismissed by High Court. Zahid Hussain Khan for Appellant. MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.‑‑‑

This order will dispose of Intra‑Court Appeals Nos.48, 49, 50 and 51 of 1995, as these arise out .of the same order of the learned Single Bench dated 23‑6‑1994.

2. By way of the said order the learned Judge dismissed number of writ petitions including those of the appellants, seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus to the respondent‑Government to allot residential plots in Mandi Town, Joharabad at the old Thal Development Authority rates. The petitions were grounded on the fact that while writ petitioners' applications for allotments filed since 1979 remained un responded, some other appellants were treated in a better way and were awarded the plots. Learned Judge in Chamber heard the representative of the respondent Government at the limine stage who informed the learned Judge about the latest policy for allotment of plots. The learned Judge came to the conclusion that in view of the policy, the writ petitioners could not be held to be entitled to the grant of the plots. Learned Judge further found the petitions to be hit by grave laches inasmuch as after allegedly filing the applications in 1979, they approached the Court only in 1992, after 13 years of unexplained delay.

3. We have heard the learned counsel in support of these appeals and we are unable to agree with the learned counsel who has contended that the impugned order suffers from any illegality and needs 2o be interfered with. Even before us, there is no explanation as to why the appellants failed to approach the Court earlier in good time, if they were convinced that they had a right 'o enforce. Thirteen years is a long period for invoking a jurisdiction which in any case is discretionary and equitable. It is equally correct that in the new policy as disclosed, the appellants will have no right to seek transfer of plots as under the policy the land, buildings and plots in Thal Mandi Towns in occupation of Government departments are to be transferred free of costs to such occupants while some quarters in various towns are to be transferred free of costs 'to the District Administration for pool accommodation and remaining plots/houses are to be disposed of through open auction. The policy seems to be fair and does not infringe any principle of law or equity.

4. No case for interference has been made out. Resultantly, all these appeals are dismissed in limine. H.B.T./Z‑141/L I.C. Appeal dismissed.