2007 PLP 2916 (YLR)

SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.

Concise facts of the case necessary for the decision of the instant petition are that out of discretionary quota of the Chief. Minister of Punjab, Faiz Bibi petitioner was allotted Plot No.1220 "'Q" Block measuring 3 Marlas in M,A. Iohar Town, Lahore. According to the allotment letter dated 22-1-1992, petitioner was to deposit a sum of Rs.16,457 within two weeks from the date of issuance of allotment letter. Petitioner, exchanged .her plot with another Plot No.114IH-2 on the same terms and conditions. A letter to this 'effect was issued on 4-2-1992. The petitioner was under an obligation to deposit an amount of Rs.16,457 within a period of six weeks from the date of second letter 4-2-1992. Petitioner instead of depositing tentative cost of plot, applied to the Chief Minster for conversion from widow quota to destitute quota. No amount is payable towards allotment, if allotment is made on destitute quota. Request of the petitioner was approved and conveyed to her through letter, dated 14-3-1992. Respondents, however, cancelled the allotment of Plot No.114-H/2 for non-deposit of tentative cost of Rs.16,457 and letter dated 18-3-2004 was issued wherein the request of the petitioner was tuned down on the plea that the quota for destitute persons, has been declared as illegal in Writ Petition No,14966 of 1995 titled "Mst Jameela Akhtar v. L.D.A." Petitioner assailed the letter dated 18-3-2004 through Writ Petition No.6160 of 2004, which was decided with the direction that the petitioner be allowed an opportunity of being heard, in case she files a fresh application. Petitioner moved another application, which was decided through order dated 5-1-2005 .passed by Director Estate Management, Lahore Development Authority. The order of Director Estate Management, is now assailed in the instant petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that by virtue of letter dated 14-3-1992 the Director has 'admitted that the petitioner has been allotted Plot No.114/H-2 M.A. Johar Town against the destitute quota. He further argued that the letter dated 4-2-1992. does not stipulate any penal consequences that incase of non-deposit of the tentative cost, allotment shall stand cancelled. It was contended that by issuance of the second letter, Plot No.114-H/2 was allotted in exchange of Plot No.1220 Block "Q", consequently period for payment of the ,deposit towards the tentative ,cost started afresh. Learned counsel went on to argue that the Chief Minister allotted the plot to the petitioner under the destitute quota before the expiry of six weeks from the issuance of second letter. Thereafter the petitioner asked time and again for issuance of the allotment letter as no amount was liable to be paid towards allotment, under destitute quota. Learned counsel while referring to Annexure "E" has submitted that as per noting 64 of L.D.A., the petitioner showed her willingness to make the payment of the tentative cast but no demand notice was issued in response to the assent of the petitioner. Learned counsel. for the petitioner contended that denial for issuance of the allotment letter under destitute quota on the plea of ban imposed, is actually incorrect. The writ petition wherein vide - order dated 26-3-1997, direction for imposition of ban on destitute quota was passed, was latter in time, petitioner was allotted plot on destitute quota earlier in time. He added the petitioner was not a party to Writ Petition No.14966 of 1995 (supra) therefore, the order passed therein is not binding upon him.

3. Learned counsellor the respondent has fully supported the impugned action of the respondent. , He has submitted that allotment to the petitioner, on quota for widow, was cancelled consequent upon her failure to deposit tentative cost" within the prescribed period. He argued further that claim of the petitioner qua the allotment on quotation destitute, was denied on the basis, Of ball imposed on such allotments, in view of decision dated 26-3-1997 passed in. Writ Petition No.14966 of 1995. He added that cost of rupees two Crores was not paid by the then Chief Minister, for price of land allocated for. destitute quota. No allotment under the said quota was possible.

4. Heard learned counsel for the parties and record perused.

5. The petitioner being widow was entitled to claim allotment on quota for destitute. She was denied the allotment of plot on the quota 'for destitute, much earlier than order dated 29-4-1997 passed in Writ Petition No.14966 of 1995. Respondent refused the allotment on destitute quota, thus allotment on quota for widows remained intact through this period. Allotment of Plot No.114/H-2 M.A. Johar Town was never cancelled until 18-3-2004. Noting Nos.72 to 80 further reveals that petitioner remained willing to pay the tentative cost of the plot. No challan for payment of cost was issued by the respondent. It is evident from the record that petitioner was called by the respondent. Her case was discussed in detail. Noting No.64 dated 21-9-1993 is 'relevant, which is reproduced hereunder:

"64 This case was discussed in presence of the allottee. He agreed to pay the cost of plot. Demand may be raised p-1. " It is admitted fact that no demand was raised as per Noting 64 (supra). The respondents were liable to issue challan, but they delayed the matter without any fault on the part of .the petitioner. The petitioner, therefore, cannot be penalized for act of omission on the part of respondents.

6. Respondents have failed to comply with the terms of order dated 29-4-2004, passed in Writ Petition No.6160 of 2004. No inquiry has been conducted nor a remedial step has been taken in the instant matter. Director Estate Management, while passing impugned order dated 5-1-2005, has totally ignored para. (noting) No.64 dated 21-9-1993. The impugned act of the respondents is .thus not legally sustaniable and is accordingly set aside. The respondents are directed to issue fresh challan 'as per their decision according to Noting No.64 (Annexure "E"). It is, however, clarified that petitioner shall pay the tentative cost of plot according to the prevalent rate and not at rate as it prevailed on the date of initial allotment i.e. 4-2-1992.

7. Disposed of with the above observations. S.A.K.-F-21/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.