P L D 1998 Lahore 429 (PLP)

Appellants have challenged the judgment and decree of learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal dated 14-6-1969 whereby he reversed the judgment of the learned Administrative Civil Judge, Sahiwal dated 19-11-1968 dismissing the suit of the respondent-plaintiff.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a plot bearing No.412-S was allotted to Ghulam Jillani respondent-plaintiff for construction of house by District Allotment Committee, Sahiwal for which agreement Exh.D-2 was executed on 11-5-1960 which stipulated the conditions that the plaintiff would take possession of the said plot on 11-5-1960, would present a building plan within six months, i.e. by 11-11-1960, would start the construction within the next six months, i.e. by 11-5-1961, and complete the construction of building within two years from the date of agreement failing which his allotment was liable to be cancelled. It was alleged that the respondent-plaintiff did not complete the building by 11-5-1962 in accordance with the conditions of allotment and Secretary, District Allotment Committee vide order dated 16-3-1966 (Exh.P-3) cancelled the allotment. Being aggrieved the plaintiff filed the suit for declaration that the said order was illegal, void and without jurisdiction. It was alleged that plaintiff was not served with any notice before the cancellation of allotment and that failure to complete the building with the prescribed period did not justify the cancellation of the plot.

3. The suit was resisted by the defendants who asserted that the order of cancellation was valid, legal and in accordance with the agreement dated 11-5-1960. On the divergent pleadings of the parties learned trial Judge framed the following issues:- (1) Whether the suit against defendant No.2 is maintainable? (2) Whether the Civil Court lacks jurisdiction to try this suit? (3) Whether defendant No.2 was competent to cancel the allotment of the? plot in dispute allotted to the plaintiff? (4) Whether defendant No.2 served the plaintiff with a notice before the? allotment was cancelled? (5) Relief,

4. Learned trial Judge dismissed the suit of the respondent on 19-11-1968 against which appeal was accepted by learned Additional District Judge and order of cancellation of the plot of the plaintiff was declared to be void, illegal and ineffective qua his rights, vide impugned judgment.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that respondent has not fulfilled the conditions of the agreement dated 11-5-1960, therefore, order of cancellation of his allotment was justified. On the other hand learned counsel for the respondent has argued that he constructed his house in the year 1960 and is living therein since then. He has not violated any condition of agreement. The order of cancellation was not in accordance with law and as such learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly accepted his appeal. 6. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the parties and gone through the record. The respondent was not given any opportunity for rectification of breach of conditions of agreement, if any, under section 24 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act. The Secretary, District Allotment Committee was not' competent to cancel the allotment on behalf of District Allotment Committee. Perusal of the agreement shows that except clause 12 which relates to resumption of land, there is no other penalty provided for violation of any terms of the agreement. This clause shows that Urban Rehabilitation Department or any Officer in its service could resume the land. It does not say that Secretary District Allotment Committee could resume the land. Order Exh.P-3 manifests that the allotment was made by the District Allotment Committee. No material has been brought on the record that the Secretary, District Allotment Committee was empowered to cancel the allotment. The fact whether any Officer of the Department could resume the land. Would it include the power to cancel the allotment, such meaning cannot be spelt out from the provisions of clause 12 of the agreement. District Allotment Committee only was competent to pass an order of cancellation of allotment. In the case in hand it was not District Allotment Committee who had passed the order of cancellation but the Secretary of the District Allotment Committee who under the law was not competent to pass such an order. Thus the learned 1st Appellate Court has rightly come to the conclusion that appellant No.2 was not competent to cancel the allotment of the respondent. Learned Additional District Judge has appreciated the evidence in its true perspective. The impugned judgment and decree is based on valid reasons and call for no interference by this Court.

7. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. A.A./P-42/L? Appeal dismissed.