2008 PLP 373 (CLC)

Through this constitutional petition, petitioner has sought directions against the respondents Nos.2 and 3 to put him in physical possession of the Plot bearing No.N-55, Block No.9-B, Scheme No.36, Category N, situated in Gulistan-e-Johar, Karachi or in lieu thereof any alternate plot in the same scheme. It is the case of petitioner that the then worthy Chief Minister Sindh on the application of the petitioner directed the respondent No.3 to allot a plot; however, no plot, was allotted. Petitioner then approached the then Prime Minister complaining about the inaction on the part of the respondent No.3. It is the case of the petitioner that his application was marked to respondent No.3, E.D.O. (Revenue), Karachi, of the then K.D.A., for appropriate action on merits. It is stated that the petitioner was offered a plot measuring 60 square yards. The petitioner paid full occupancy value yet the possession of said plot has not been handed over despite followed up of the matter till date. When the learned counsel was confronted as to whether Chief Minister or for that matter Prime Minister has any authority or power to allot plot in any of K.D.A. Scheme. He has referred to the case reported as Agha Fakhruddin v. Muhammad Paryal and others PLD 1989 SC 16 and Agha Saifuddin and another v. Dr. Muhammad Ashfaq Piracha and another 1986 CLC 1819 in support of his contention that the allotment could be made. As against above, Mr. Abbas Ali, learned A.A.-G. has disputed the authority of Chief Minister Sindh to allot any plot by passing law. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the case-law reported as Abdul Haq v. Government of Sindh 2000 SCMR

907. Mr. Manzoor Ahmed, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/CDGK contends that the plots in, residential scheme are to be allotted in accordance with the provisions of S.L.G.O. He has referred to sections 44 and 45 of S.L.G.O., 1979 corresponding to section 124 of S.L.G.O., 2001. It was contended that no formalities or requirements of the law, were complied with, therefore, the claim of the petitioner cannot be sustained. Both the learned counsel have also pointed out that the purported challan dated 4-4-1988 does not bear the stamp or seal of the Bank, therefore, its authenticity is doubtful. Even otherwise under the Rules of Business, Chief Minister has no authority or jurisdiction to make any directives contrary to law. We have heard the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the parties, perused the material available on record and thoroughly scanned the case-laws cited at Bar. The cases relied upon by Mr. Mustafa Lakhani, learned counsel for the petitioner were examined. It may be noted that in both the cited cases, the allotments were to be made under the statement of conditions issued under section 10 of the Colonization Act, 1912. Even otherwise the disposal of the land under the statement of condition is to be made provided the person fulfils the criteria laid down thereunder. In the case in hand admittedly there is no such scheme or statement of conditions under which any quota has allocated to the Chief Minister or the Prime Minister for allotment. Even under the S.L.G.O., 1979 as succeeded by S.L.G.O., 2001 the proper procedure has been laid down regulating transfer of the land. In the case of Abdul Haq v. Government of Sindh PLD 2000 Kar. 224 as well. It was held that all public functionaries how so higher may be are bound to act within the parameter of law. It is common sight that the persons holding high political office, for motivated political gain display benevolence at the cost of State, by passing legitimate authority vested in them and make directions and pass orders of the nature that may politically suit them and are beyond their competence or authority, such order may not withstand if put to test. Such conduct is indeed deplorable. It is the duty of holder of political office not to give any false hope or make tall claims which is not within their domain or authority. Petitioner alleged that purported order to allot plot in question was passed in the year 1984 yet the petition was filed on 27-9-2004 when much water has flown under the bridge and after lapse of more than two decades. Petition suffers from lathes besides authenticity of challan is disputed. There appears to be no justification to invoke or exercise the discretionary and equitable writ jurisdiction. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in this petition, which is dismissed in limine. H.B. T. /I-34/K Petition dismissed.