2004 PLP 15 (CLC)

Shoukat Hayat for Petitioner. Muzaffar Imam for Respondents Nos. 1 and

2. Qasim Mirjat, Asstt.A.‑G. Date of hearing: 3rd May, 2000. One Sitara Khatoon was allotted a plot of land measuring 120 sq. yds. in Gulshan‑e‑Iqbal by respondents Nos.1 and 2 and through transfer application dated 24‑3‑1996 she transferred her allotment rights in favour of the petitioner with the approval of the aforesaid respondents. Subsequently the respondents executed registered lease in favour of the petitioner on 21‑5‑1996 and delivered possession of the plot to him. By a letter dated 17‑7‑1997, however, the Assistant Director Land Management of the respondent No.1 informed the petitioner that pursuant to orders issued by the Housing Town Planning Local Government and Rural Development Department, Government of Sindh allotments of plots made in violation of the Rules and Regulations between 20‑10‑1993 and 5‑11‑1996 stood cancelled with immediate effect and, therefore, the petitioner was directed to surrender original documents immediately. The petitioner has called in question the aforesaid direction on a number of grounds. In the first instance the admitted position seems to be that no, prior notice of cancellation was given to the petitioner. Secondly, it has not been shown as to which of the rule of the Allotment Regulations had been violated nor was the learned counsel for the respondents able to refer to any precise violation. All that were urged was that the cancellation has been effected on, the orders of Housing and Town Planning Department of the Provincial Government. This by itself would render the order invalid inasmuch as it has not been shown under which law such direction is binding on the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 and in any event the respondents being a repositions of public power are required to independently apply their minds instead of acting mechanically on directions whose own validity is subject to serious doubts. Moreover, all that the direction appeared to contain was that plots allotted in violation of rule cancellation and obviously the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 had no authority to cancel an allotment without determining whether violation of any Rules or Regulations had taken place. Accordingly we have no doubt that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority and was mala fide. In the circumstances, we would allow this petition restraining the respondents from interfering with the property rights of the petitioner created inter alia through a registered lease executed by the officers of the respondents themselves and direct them to pay cost of Rs.10,000 to the petitioner. The amount of cost may be recovered from the officers responsible for creating this situation. H.B.T./J-61/K Petition allowed.