Allotment of plot

2024 PLD 50 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

R. 14(1)ShipbreakingAllotment of plotsLease agreement, violation ofCancellation of allotment

Petitioner was a Ship-Breaking Company which was allotted plots in Gaddani Ship-breaking Yard for beaching vessels by the respondents (Balochistan Development Authority)

Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court alleging that allotment order had been cancelled in clandestine manner by the respondents while it was facing financial crises

Validity

Petitioner was allotted two plots in Gaddani Ship-breaking Yard in the year 2012 and a lease agreement was also executed

During the first five years of the lease agreement, several vessels were beached and salvaged due to which no controversy arose between the petitioner and the respondents, which led them to renewal of the allotment for further five years, following execution of lease agreement in the year 2017

Rule 14(1) of the Rules 1979 manifested that after the allotment of the lease, the allotted plots could not be left vacant without a ship for more than four months, however, the same could be extended for further four months, but with the prior approval of the Authority in writing for good reasons shown after being satisfied for not beaching the ship within the stipulated period of four months and that if the Rule was violated the lease would automatically stand terminated

Furthermore, the relevant para of the lease-deed executed by the petitioner also provided a similar condition

There was no denial on the part of the petitioner and endorsed by the respondents that the last vessel beached on the allotted pots in the year 2017, but thereafter no vessel had been beached by the petitioner

Petitioner had not placed on record any tangible evidence to substantiate his claim regarding his inability, including financial crises faced by him to beach the vessels

Record revealed that after cancellation of the allotment of the plots-in-question, the same had been allotted to another ship-breaking company which had executed lease agreement, in consequence thereof a vested rights had been created in its favour, but the petitioner had not arrayed the said company as respondent in the present petition, which now had an infeasible right in the allotted plots

Moreover, the lease-in-question was executed in the year 2017 for five years which had elapsed in the year 2022

Hence, the lease executed in favour of the petitioner was no more in field

Allegation about cancellation of allotment order by putting back dates on the same in clandestine manner had not been substantiated by the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 PLC(CS) 727 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Rr.2(xviii), 4 & Scheds. I & IIConstitution of Pakistan, Art.25DiscriminationAllotment of plotEntitlement

Dispute was with regard to allotment of additional plot to Secretaries and respondent claimed that he had been discriminated as four other officials similarly placed had been allotted plots

Judge in Chambers of High Court directed Federal Government to allot an additional plot to respondent

Plea raised by authorities was that though respondent was promoted as Secretary but his services were placed on the disposal of Provincial Government and he did not hold office of Federal Secretary, therefore, he was not entitled to allotment of such plot

Validity

Respondent was promoted as Secretary to the Government of Pakistan and retired as such therefore he had one year service at his credit, as a Secretary

For holding of an office as a Federal Secretary it was the prerogative of Prime Minister who could place services of a Secretary, BS-22, where he wanted or had thought appropriate

Postings of respondent at different provincial departments could not snatch rank and status of a Secretary, BS-22, because it had been awarded to him by Government of Pakistan

Every Division, under R.4 of Rules of Business, 1973, consisted of a Secretary to the Government and such other officials subordinate to him as the Government could determine and the Secretary was the official head of such Division

Amongst the other four allottees who after having been promoted as Secretaries Government of Pakistan were re-employed after their superannuation and were allowed the package but respondent was refused

According to Schedule I read with Schedule II of Rules of Business, 1973, National Security Council was not listed as a Division where one of the four allottees served and then retired, yet he was allotted an additional plot

Similarly, other three allottees though had been working as Secretaries but whether they served as head of the Divisions had not been disclosed

Allotments made to the said four officials was discrimination with respondent

Respondent after having been promoted and posted as Secretary (BS-22) under the order of competent authority had become eligible for allotment of an additional plot as were granted to other four Secretaries, whose cases were at par with that of the respondent

It was not justifiable to deprive respondent from a facility/benefit which had been awarded to those standing on the same footings

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Judge in Chambers as there was no illegality in it

Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

2023 PLD 17 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss.42 & 54Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 18(1)Suit for declaration and injunctionAllotment of plotMisrepresentationVicarious liability, principle ofNegligence of employee of companyEffectPlaintiff was transferee of suit plot which was in the management defendant Foundation

Plaintiff sold suit plot to another person but defendant Foundation few years after the transfer made by plaintiff, cancelled his allotment on the plea that it was made by fraud

Suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court

Validity

Defendant Foundation was vicariously responsible for loss occasioned by negligence of its employees

Barring some exceptions, such was the doctrine of vicarious liability having a good commercial rationale

Defendant Foundation was a company that charged transfer fee and had issued a document of title

Defendant Foundation held out to the world at large that its document of title was one on the basis of which title holder could transact the plot

Result would be monstrous, if defendant Foundation could turn around and disclaim its title document as bereft of any credence

Provisions of S. 18(1) of Contract Act, 1872, enumerated ingredients of misrepresentation which made actual knowledge of person making representation of it being untrue, irrelevant

Even if defendant Foundation as a corporate body did not know at the relevant time that transfer letter in question was not genuine, its employees per inquiry report knew so and their acts were vicariously attributable to defendant Foundation

Plaintiff carried out his due diligence of plot files at defendant Foundation's office

Plaintiff was entitled to rely on transfer letter regarding title document issued by defendant Foundation to his predecessor-in-interest

Defendant Foundation was entitled to cancel the plot once it had found out that transfer letter was issued as a result of what the defendant Foundation called a fraud in which its employees were complicit with fake persons or such was an instance of gross negligence

Defendant Foundation was vicariously liable for negligence act of its employees, per its inquiry report, and was liable to compensate plaintiff

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

2022 CLC 735 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Art.17Pakistan Defence Officers' Cooperative Housing Society Bye-Laws (1972)Allotment of plot

Respondent filed suit for declaration, injunction and compensation against appellant/Housing Authority on the grounds that a residential plot was allotted to her father by appellant which was mutated in favour of his legal heirs after his demise; that legal heirs submitted documents for transfer of subject plot but society cancelled the same on the pretext that her father was earlier allotted a residential plot which he had sold and he was not entitled for second residential plot; that society issued show-cause notice which was challenged by respondent before the High Court which had directed the respondent to submit reply to such notice and in case the society would decide to reject the contention of respondent, society was restrained form cancelling the transfer till proper adjudication was done

Trial Court decreed the suit

Appellant contended that father of the respondent was not entitled for second residential plot as per by-laws of the society, which was got allotted by concealing facts and violation of said bye-laws; that respondent had not vested right to independently claim any title in the property being bound to sink or swim with her deceased father; and that member was only entitled for one residential and one commercial plot and any allotment in violation of bye-laws was liable to be cancelled by Managing Committee

Validity

Subject plot was allotted to respondent's deceased father through ballot held on 22/02/1976

All legal heirs of deceased allottee submitted documents for transfer of the said plot, but the said transfer was not done by the society to respondent on the pretext that respondent's deceased father was allotted another residential plot in 1960

Trial Court thoroughly discussed all aspects of case including; non-production of original allotment order of alleged second plot in favour of deceased father by the society during trial; general power of attorney in favour of third person and subsequent sub-lease in name of the same; that payment of transfer charges of such plot were made at commercial rates instead of residential; and factual errors and lack of authenticity on part of society

Trial Court also thrashed out significant difference of signatures of the deceased father on the application form for allotment and the power of attorney and that deceased father did not figure in sub-lease and transfer order

Trial Court held that society failed to discharge the burden to prove that the respondent's late father got the allotment of suit plot without disclosing about existence of second plot in his name

Judgment of Trial Court showed that impugned cancellation letter was issued by the appellant without application of fair and judicious mind and without consideration of basic principles of law

No fair opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent

Impugned letter was devoid of reasoning and grounds for cancellation of allotment

Society did not bring any substantial defect in appraisal of facts or any question of law having not been considered by the Trial Court

High Court Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

2022 PLD 273 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Ss. 2(j) & 3Registered member of Federal Government Employees Housing AuthorityRights and entitlementsAllotment of plotPre-condition

No independent right or entitlement has been created under Federal Government Employees Housing Authority Act, 2020, in favour of registered members of the Authority to claim allotment of a plot at the expense of interest of public at large

Basis of allotment under FGEHA Act, 2020 is membership of FGEHAuthority on voluntary basis

Acquisition of land, launching a scheme and distribution of acquired land are solely governed and regulated under approved policy of Federal Government

Such policy has to meet threshold of public purpose and has to serve and be in conformity with public interest and cannot operate in derogation of fundamental rights of public at large.

2020 YLR 1222 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

Cancellation of allotmentDamages, recovery of

Appellant claimed to have purchased plot in question and got transferred same in his name by Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation

Grievance of petitioner was that Foundation had illegally cancelled plot and had also sought compensation against Foundation

Validity

Appellant in fact claimed damages from Foundation for cancellation of plot for which he had named same as compensation

Single Judge of High Court rightly dismissed Constitutional petition as alternate remedy was available to appellant before appropriate civil court as same was against spirit of Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was not substitute for civil proceedings before appropriate forums on pretext of being not an efficacious remedy

Constitutional petition could not provide shortcut method for expeditious redressal of grievance of aggrieved party through bypassing courts below, provided under law for effective decision of matters after examining evidences on issues

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of Constitution could only be invoked where no adequate remedy was provided by law and it did not speak of efficacious remedy

Adequacy and efficacy of remedy were dependent upon circumstances of each case as to what could be efficacious and adequate in facts and circumstances of the case could not be so in other

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

2018 MLD 365 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

S. 47Allotment of plotCancellation ofExecution petitionObjectionsScopeNotice was issued to cancel allotment of plot against which suit was filed

Trial Court dismissed the suit but appellate Court decreed the same subject to payment of "admissible compensation" to the Authority

Execution petition was moved and Executing Court fixed Rs. 61,000/- as fair and just compensation

Validity

Judgment passed by the Appellate Court had attained finality

Executing Court had determined "admissible compensation"

Petitioners had participated in the execution proceedings

Possession of plot in question was taken forcibly by the petitioners which was delivered to the plaintiff/respondent

Petitioners had paid prevalent price of plot in question

No illegality, irregularity, mis-reading or non-reading of record had been pointed out

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 YLR 1436 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

O.I, Rr.3 & 10(2)Allotment of plotImpleadment of necessary partyDuring pendency of suit Authority (defendant) allotted plot to another person

Decision of suit would have direct bearing on the right of transferee of plot and law on the subject did not preclude the said transferee from being made party to the pending proceedings.

2013 CLC 100 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3Intra-court appealAllotment of plotDemand notice for additional amount

Appellant was allotted plot in question by authorities and after about 9 years of delivery of its possession, authorities demanded money for extra land alleged to be in possession of appellant

Validity

Amount in question was a price of excess land which formed part of plot in year 1998 when allotment in the name of appellant was made

Nothing prevented authorities from measurement of plot in question in year, 1998 and charged price of excess area at the spot

If such process could have undertaken by authorities in year, 1998, the price chargeable for excess area should not have been more than the price at rate mentioned in allotment letter

Merely because authorities themselves delayed process of measurement of extra land forming part of plot of appellant and took twelve years in raising demand that too after issuing an office order dated 28-5-2001, embodying a policy for assessing prices of future cases by authorities did not clothe the authorities with any lawful authority to raise demand against appellant for recovery of price at 40% above the current rate determined by Deputy Commissioner in locality of the property

Such act of authorities was unjust, unfair and was violative of principles of equity and justice and amounted to applying doctrine of unjust enrichment in favour of authorities

Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment passed by Single Judge and directed the authorities to charge price from appellant of excess area at the price proportionate to one on which plot in question was allotted to appellant in year 1998

Intra-court appeal was allowed accordingly.