1988 PLP 126 (MLD)

AJMMAL MIAN, J.‑‑This petition is directed against the alleged cancellation of the plot measuring 2,000 sq. yds. situated in Scheme No. 5, Clifton (Kahkashan).

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the above petition are that the petitioner who was attached as the Secretary to the then Prime Minister of Pakistan, applied for the allotment of plot measuring 4,000 sq. yds. According to the petitioner since 4,000 sq. yds. plot was not available in the above Scheme (hereinafter referred to as the Scheme) he was allotted two plots bearing Nos. F/1 and F/2 in Block 3 by a letter dated 15‑2‑1975. In pursuance whereof the petitioner deposited 25 per cent, namely, Rs. 50,000 and the allotment letter was followed on 14‑4‑1975. It appears that the petitioner did not take any further steps in the matter and the first letter which he had written to the respondent is dated 5‑12‑1982 averring therein that he was the allottee of two plots and that he wanted to make the payment of the balance amount. Again the petitioner kept quiet for four years and wrote a letter dated 5‑2‑1986 again averring therein that he was the allottee of two plots and he was ready to make payment of two plots. The above letter of 1986 was replied to by respondent No. 1 by a letter dated 27‑2‑1986. It appears that eventually the petitioner was given the option by respondent No. 1 through their letter dated 17‑2‑1987 to select one of the two plots for the reasons that the ex‑Minister's order for allotment related to only one plot; and secondly under the KDA Land Disposal Rules, 1971, two plots could not have been allotted to one person. In response to the above letter, the petitioner exercised the option by his letter-dated 24‑10‑1987 and opted for plot No.F/1 and thereafter allegedly wrote another letter on the same date averring therein that he was accepting the one plot under protest. The petitioner being aggrieved by the alleged cancellation of the allotment in respect of one plot has filed the present petition.

3. In support of the above petition Mr. Shahanshah Hussain, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently urged that the petitioner's allotment had been cancelled without issuing any prior show‑cause notice and without hearing the petitioner. The above contention seems to be devoid of any force inasmuch as the petitioner himself bas filed the above documents which indicate that after the alleged allotment of the two plots the petitioner was supposed to make payment of the balance consideration as per terms of the allotment letter dated 14‑4‑1975 within a period of two years from the date of the possession. After the receipt of the above letter the petitioner neither asked for the possession of the plot nor took any further action till the writing of his first letter dated 1‑12‑1982 and again the petitioner kept quiet for another four years period and wrote a letter on 5‑2‑1986. The petitioner was given the option for the reasons referred to hereinabove that he should opt for one of the plots which option he has exercised. In our view, this is not a fit case where this Court should exercise constitutional jurisdiction in a case where apparently the petitioner's above conduct disentitles him to above discretionary relief. Furthermore, the petition suffers from laches inasmuch as the petitioner did not press for the possession of the two plots from 1975 upto 1982 and thereafter from 1982 upto 1986. Additionally the above petition involved disputed questions of facts, which are pre‑eminently suitable for adjudication in a suit.

4. The petition has no merit and it is dismissed in limine. AA./A‑287/K Petition dismissed,