1983 PLP 2322 (CLC)

The petitioner challenges through this petition the refusal on the part of the respondent No. 2 to transfer to her a plot of land . measuring 1 kanal in the Shadman Colony, Lahore. The main plea of the respondents is that the original offer of the Government as also contained in the letters dated 2nd March, 1981, 24th of March, I~81 and .the directions contained therein for transferring the plot to they petitioner have been withdrawn vide letter dated 3rd June, 1982 and so they have ceased to be operative.

2. Briefly, the facts of this case are that a plot No. 35; measur ing 3 Kanals 7 marlas 12 sq. ft, situated on Jail Road, Lahore, was reserved in the name of the petitioner by the competent Settlement Authority. Its evaluation was yet to be made and conveyed when the predecessor authority of X ;respondent No. 2 launched a scheme under which the said reserved plot was to be utilized for widening the Jail Road.

3. On 2nd March, 1966 the petitioner was informed by the Govern ment that she will be given in lieu of her rights, a one‑kanal plot in the Shadman Colony on the reserved, price. She was also to pay in addition the price of the evacuee plot. The petitioner made a repre sentation against the above on 18th March, 1966 urging that the law neither intended nor was it its purpose that the petitioner should pay the price of the evacuee plot in addition to the reserve price of the respondent's plot. She, however, consented to surrender her interest in the evacuee plot and pay the reserve price of the plot to the respon dent No. 2.

4. The Government vide its letter dated 5th May, 1967 (Annex. `C') agreed with the representation of the petitioner and allowed her a plot of one kanal in lieu of the interest surrendered by her in the evacuee plot. A letter was written by the Government on the same day to the Deputy Secretary (Plots) saying that acquisition proceeding be taken and the petitioner should surrender the evacuee interest.

5. On 28th February, 1968, the Government informed the petitioner that she was to pay the price of the evacuee plot and obtain a P. T. O. This resulted in further correspondence between the parties. The petitioner was ultimately informed that as the scheme had been transferred to the respondent No. 2, she should approach it for her objective. On 16th April, 1980, the petitioner made a representation to the Director‑General of the Lahore Development Authority, informing him that the Law Department has also agreed that the petitioner could get a plot in lieu of the . interest surrendered by her. The Director‑General in turn on Ist September, 1980 wrote that the Government should inform him of the final decision taken in that behalf. He sent a copy of the letter to the petitioner also.

6. The petitioner again made a representation on 13th September, 1980. The Deputy Director (Legal) of the respondent wrote to the petitioner that the Government had admitted that the plot had been offered to the petitioner against a sum of Rs.25,000 vide its letter dated 16th November, 1974. He, therefore, required of the petitioner to communicate within a week if she had accepted or not the said offer of the Government.

7. On 29th October, 1980 the petitioner informed the L. D. A., that she never received the letter dated 16th of November, 1974 as, probably it was sent under a wrong name to a wrong address. She, however, accepted the offer and stated that she was willing to pay the price fixed. On 4th November, 1980 she sent a draft of Rs. 25,000 also to the Director‑General.

8. It appears that the Deputy Director (Legal) did not accept the draft and vide his letter dated 15th November, 1980 asked' the petitioner to correspond with the Government. He also returned the amount sent by her. The petitioner represented to Government. She also sent the amount of the draft on 22nd November 1980, which is lying with the Government. As no progress was made she filed the present petition on 27th December, 1980 on which a report was called for from the Lahore Development Authority.

9. On 2nd March, 1981, the Government accepted the plea of the petitioner that the offer dated 16th November, 1974 has not been received by the petitioner as the letter was sent to a wrong person with wrong address. It further directed that plot No. 222, for which proceedings were stayed, be transferred to the petitioner, as it was an old commitment and must be honoured. The pay order in the sum of Rs. 25,000 was enclosed towards cost of the plot. The Lahore Deve lopment Authority wrote back to the Government to leave the matter to the decision of the Court and returned the pay order. The Govern ment on 24th March, 1981 again reminded the Lahore Development Authority to implement its order dated 2nd March, 1981 without any rhyme or reason under intimation to it. It was then under the verbal orders of the Secretary Housing and Planning that the letters dated 2nd March, and 24th March, 1981 were withdrawn.

10. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that as it was an old commitment of the Government and the same had been acted upon by the petitioner, it could not have been withdrawn. Reliance is placed on the case of Pakistan, through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi (PLD1969SC407). It is further stated that the grant was for a consideration and, therefore, could not have, in any case, been recalled. Reference is made to the reser vation of the plot No. 35, measuring 3 kanals 7 marlas 12 sq. ft. by the Settlement Authority in favour of the petitioner, its recognition by the Government and utilisation of the same plot by the Lahore Development Authority for widening the Jail Road.

11. The learned counsel for the respondents contested this petition mainly on account of laches and conduct of the petitioner. He has taken ‑me through the correspondence referred to above to show that the petitioner could not make up her mind and had wilfully delayed the case. This plea, on the face of it amounts to overlooking the correct factual. position. It is to be noted that it is rather the Govern ment which was waivering and changing its position at different stages. It finally agreed on 16th November, 1974 to transfer the plot against a sum of Rs. 25,000.

12. The petitioner was informed in March, 1966 that she will be given one kanal plot in the Shadman Colony on reserve price but she was also to pay the price of the evacuee plot. On her representation the Government on 5th May, 1967 accepted her representation and allowed the transfer of the plot to her in lieu of her surrendering her interest in the property. This was supported by a letter written to the Deputy Settlement Commissioner, saying that the petitioner has. surrendered the evacuee interest.

13. The Government, thereafter, required of the petitioner to pay the price of the evacuee plot and obtain a P. T. O. An unambiguous and clear offer was then made on 16th November, 1974. This offer was admittedly not received by the petitioner. However, as the Lahore Development Authority wanted fresh instructions from the Government, the Government again agreed to give her the plot vide letter dated 2nd March, 1981 after seeking advice from the Law Department that she may get the plot in lieu of interest surrendered by her.

14. The facts given above, therefore, do go to show that the parties had been changing their position and negotiating the deal which ultimately resulted in the offer dated 16th November, 1974. By that date the Government seems to have fixed its position and consequently a clear offer was transmitted to the petitioner. The petitioner, however, did not communicate her acceptance of the same. Her case was that the said letter had not reached her on account of wrong name and wrong address. She, therefore, made a representation about it to the Govern ment also.

15. The Government too admitted in its letter dated 2nd March, 1981 at page 130 of the file that the letter did not reach the petitioner because of wrong name and wrong address. In this view of the matter the allegation that the petitioner had either delayed the acceptance of the offer or was not willing to get the property is misplaced. Rather, it is unjustifiable for the Lahore Development Authority to. raise such an objection as the Government never denied the right of the petitioner and even in its subsequent letter dated 24th March, 1981 further directed the respondent No. 2 to implement the old commitment of the Govern ment without any rhyme or reason. The later withdrawal of the two letters dated 2nd March, 1981 and 24th March, 1981 vide letter dated 3rd June, 1982 of the Government, by the Secretary Housing and Plan ning is not explained in the file and seems to have been made under some misconception of facts and law.

16. In any case, this withdrawal of the two letters does not affect the merit of the case. The admission by the Government of the fact of non‑receipt of the letter dated 16th November, 1974 by the petitioner for the reason, that it did not bear correct address and name, would always remain there. The situation thus boils down to the fact that the Government has throughout accepted the right of the petitioner to be given one kanal plot of land in Shadman Colony, against her right, in 3 kanals 7 marlas 12 sq. ft. of evacuee land, which under reservation scheme, was transferable to her, by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner. The petitioner had also paid a sum of Rs. 25,000 as directed and the Government, after its acceptance, sent that amount B to the Lahore Development Authority for adjustment. The withdrawal of the letters dated 3rd March, 1981 and 24th March, 1981 during the pendency of the petition did not alter the previous position and inter se rights of the parties. The right of the petitioner and its recog nition by the Government till today stays put.

17. Be that as it may; it does not behave the Government and the statutory functionaries to shun or avoid their commitments to the citizens particularly when they ate based on valid and reasonable con siderations. The public functionaries should also not take up technical objections against genuine: and valid claims as it shutters the public confidence in them. This matter has been hanging fire for about 15 years .since 1967, without a sufficient cause. For the reasons stated above, the refusal on the part of the respon dents to transfer a one‑kanal plot to the petitioner in. Shadman Colon is declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The respondent No. 2 is, therefore, directed to transfer the said plot. No.

222. Shadman Colony to the petitioner. In case the said plot has already been allotted or disposed of finally to some body else, the petitioner shall be given another plot of the same area and value in the same Colony. The respondent No. 2 shall also adjust against the price of the plot, the money already received. There will be no order as to costs. M. Y. H.