SAMI-UD-DIN GHORI vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal and affirmed the denial of his request for the allotment of a residential plot under a quota reserved for Overseas Pakistanis. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed a vested legal right to the allotment of a plot under the aforementioned quota. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit because the special quota in question had been abolished prior to the maturation of the petitioner's application. Furthermore, the petitioner failed to demonstrate any provision of law, rule, or policy that would entitle him to such an allotment as a matter of right. Consequently, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, affirming that in the absence of a subsisting legal entitlement or policy framework, the claim for allotment could not be sustained.
- Does an applicant have a vested right to a plot allotment if the quota policy under which they applied was abolished before their application matured?
- Can a petitioner claim a plot allotment without citing a specific provision of law, rule, or policy supporting their entitlement?
ORDER
' TASSADUQ HUSSAIN JILLANI, J.--- Leave is sought against the judgment dated 28-10-2003, vide which a learned Division Bench of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissed petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal and affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the same Court dated 5-6-2003, vide which petitioner's Constitution Petition seeking a direction to the Lahore Development Authority to allot him a residential plot against the quota reserved for Overseas Pakistanis was dismissed.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and have gone through the impugned judgment.
3. It is not disputed by petitioner's learned counsel and it has been so concurrently held that special quota stood abolished before the petitioner's application could mature. Petitioner's learned counsel has not referred to any provision of law; rule or policy under which he could claim the residential plot as of right. That being so, the concurrent judgments are unexceptionable. We do not find' any merit in this petition which is accordingly dismissed and .