1988 G L C 1948 (PLP)

AJMAL MIAN, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the orders dated 24‑12‑1975 and 1‑1‑1976, passed by the respondent. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner intended to set up a Textile Mills in the SITE Industrial Area, Kotri, and therefore, applied on 23‑5‑1975 for allotment of Plot No. 11/4 measuring 25 acres. There was exchange of some letters between the petitioner and the respondent including the respondent's letter, dated 6‑8‑1975, in which it was stated that the petitioner's request would be placed before the Board of Directors SITE Limited in their next meeting and that the petitioner would be informed. The above letter was followed by the respondent's letter, dated 12‑8‑1975 signed for Managing Director, in which inter alia the terms and conditions for allotting the above plot were given and the petitioners were asked to comply with the same within 10 days. It seems that the petitioner complied with the requirements contained in the above letter, inasmuch as paid the requisite amount demanded and got the possession of the above plot on 23rd August, 1975 (Annexure 'K' to the Petition).' The handing over of the possession was followed by issuance of no‑objection certificate by the respondent dated 26‑8‑1975 for electric, telephone, gas and water connections. This was further followed ‑by approval of the plan by respondent through their letter, dated 15‑10‑1975. After that the respondent issued another letter, dated 30‑10‑1975, granting no‑objection for mortgaging the property. It is also an admitted position that after the approval of the plan the petitioner had commenced construction. It seems that the respondent through their letter, dated 4‑12‑1975 had informed the petitioner that the matter was placed before the Board of Directors in their meeting held on 1‑11‑1975, wherein it was resolved that in view of the shortage of the land the petitioner's above allotted plot area be reduced to 10 acres from 25 acres. The above letters was replied by the petitioner through their letter dated 8th December, 1975. The respondent thereafter, through their notice dated 1st January, 1976, directed the petitioner to stop construction of the factory even on 10 acres till further orders. The petitioner being aggrieved by the above orders have filed the present petition.

2. In support of the above petition, it has been contended by Mr. I. H . Zaidi, learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondent have no power in law to reduce the area from 25 acres to 10 acres after the aforesaid actions were taken referred to in para. 1.

3. On the other hand Mr. Syed Tariq Ali, learned counsel for the respondent has urged that since the petitioners were merely granted a licence, the respondents were entitled to reduce the area in furtherance of the object for which the respondents were established, namely, to promote the development of industries. ??????????? 4.???????? Mr. I.H. Zaidi, in support of his contentions has referred to the following cases:‑‑ (i)???????? Anjuman‑e‑Ahmadiya, Sargodha v. The Deputy Commissioner Sargodha P L D 1966 S C 639 in which the Hon'ble Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant against the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Bench, whereby the appellant's petition was dismissed challenging the cancellation of the grant of land. It was held by the Supreme Court of Pakistan that the writ petition was competent and that a valid grant can only be cancelled in accordance with the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), read with Schedule II. (ii)??????? The Majlis‑Intizamia Jamia Masjid, Ghulam Muhammad Abad Colony, Lyallpur P L D 1975 S C

355. In this case also the Honourable Supreme Court allowed the appeal of the appellant against the judgment of the erstwhile High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore Bench, dismissing the appellant's writ petition against the cancellation of the lease granted for construction of Mosque. It was held that if the Government cancels lease otherwise than as provided in the terms of grant an aggrieved party is entitled to invoke writ jurisdiction. It was also held that the cancellation of land otherwise than as provided in the terms of lease deed was not legal. (iii)?????? Haji Noor Muhammad and others v. Karachi Development Authority and 2 others P L D 1975 Kar. 373, in which the cancellation of the allotment of a residential plot by the K.D.A. High Court of Sind and Baluchistan, Karachi while allowing the petition, it was held that the allottee was not merely a licensee or sub‑licensee but has a right in rem in respect of plot allotted to him. (iv)?????? Muhammad Latif and 5 others v. The Border Area Committee, Lahore and another P L D 1978 Lah.

762. In the above case a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court held that the cancellation of the allotment without affording opportunity of being heard to the petitioners was without lawful authority and of no legal effect and that the constitutional petition was competent.

5. There can be . no cavil to the propositions of law produced in the above cited cases, namely, that even an allotment of plot coupled with the permission to raise permanent construction cannot be cancelled without providing an opportunity to the affected person and without any cogent reason. In tie instant case the respondent had allotted above plot measuring 25 acres of land, the possession of which was given, the plan for the construction of which was approved, no objection for mortgaging the property was granted and factually the construction of building had commenced. After all the? above*acts and after expiry of several months the respondent purported to reduce the area from 25 acres to 10 acres unilaterally even without issuing any show‑cause notice. In the terms of the allotment, prima facie, there is no such power reserved by the respondent nor it can be spelt out from any provision of law.

6. We are not impressed by the contention of Mr. Syed Tariq Ali that the action taken by the respondent is in furtherance of the object of the respondent namely, to promote industrial development in the province of Sind. According to him 10 acres would be sufficient to meet the requirement of the petitioner, and, therefore, the respondent in good faith have reduced the area in order to accommodate some other industries. Even if it is to be held that the respondent had all the good intention while taking the impugned action, the fact remains that in law the action cannot be sustained. It was open to the respondent either not to allot any plot to the respondent or to allot a plot of 5 acres or of 10 acres but after having allotted 25 acres, after having accepted premium, after having approved the plan for construction of factory building, after having granted a no‑objection for mortgaging property and after the commencement of the construction of the building, in our view, the respondent had no power or justification to reduce the area from 25 acres to 10 acres. The impugned action is, patently illegal without jurisdiction. We would, allow the petition and declare the impugned order as being without lawful authority and of no legal effect. However, there will be no order as to costs. H . B . T . /S‑146/ K?? Petition allowed.