KHURRAM SHAHZAD vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Deputy Commissioner Paras

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

KHURRAM SHAHZAD VS PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Deputy Commissioner Paras. 3, 33 & 34---Punjab Government Residences Allotment Policy, 1997 [since repealed], Paras. 7 & 15---Punjab General Clauses Act, 1956 (III of 1957), S. 20---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42, 54 & 56(d)---Suit for declaration, permanent and mandatory injunction---Maintainability---Allotment of Government accommodation to Government servant, withdrawal of---Entitlement of Government Servant to official residence---Scope---Alternate remedy, availability of---Petitioner/plaintiff (serving police officer) instituted civil suit against withdrawal of the house allotted to him---Civil Court dismissed the suit, being non-maintainable, by invoking S.56(d) of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, that he (plaintiff/petitioner) had alternate remedy under the law---Findings of the Trial Court were maintained by the appellate Court---Validity---Petitioner, being a serving police officer, was not eligible to allotment of the house in terms of Para. 3 of the Punjab Government Residences Allotment Policy, 2021 ('the Allotment Policy')---Under the Allotment Policy, the Government could place residences at the disposal of other institutions such as City District Government by creating a Pool, to be dealt with at district level in terms of Allotment Policy at District Level, 2002 ('District Level Policy')---House-in-question, primarily concerning cadre strength of Services and General Administration Department ('S&GAD'), was allotted to the petitioner (a police officer) by the respondent (concerned Deputy Commissioner (DC)) in contravention of eligibility criteria ---When the said allotment stood withdrawn by the respondent/DC, the same could not be challenged, as in terms of S. 20 of the General Clauses Act, 1956, an authority vested with the jurisdiction to pass an order could also rescind or recall the same---Even a grace period of two years under Para 33.2 of the Allotment Policy, 2021 as asserted by the petitioner, could not be given to him under (repealed) Punjab Government Residences Allotment Policy, 1997, as not only allotment Policy, 1997 had been repealed by the time-in-question but also because Para. 7 of the Allotment Policy, 1997, stipulated allotment of house-in-question to a government servants borne on the cadre strength of S&GAD---Police officials were not on the cadre strength of S&GAD but were governed under Police Order, 2002---When the basic order was without lawful authority then the superstructure would have to fall on the ground automatically---Even otherwise, under Para. 15 of the Allotment Policy, 1997, or under subsequent Allotment Policy, 2021, no vested rights were given to provide residence to the Government servants , thus when the plaintiff/petitioner was not able to establish his entitlement to any legal character or to any right in property, suit under S. 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was not maintainable---There was no time period specified in the allotment order, so the petitioner/ plaintiff at the most was an occupant-at-will and was liable to vacate the house as and when asked by the competent authority---No illegality or infirmity was noticed in the impugned orders and judgments passed by both the Courts below in declaring the suit instituted by the petitioner/plaintiff as non-maintainable---Civil revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

KHURRAM SHAHZAD vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Deputy Commissioner Paras — 2023 PLC(CS) 1375 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2023 PLC