No vested right or conclusive allotment can be claimed by the allottee.

Now applying the test, in terms of the distinction drawn inter-se ‘condition precedent’ and ‘condition subsequent’, it is evident that respondent allottee cannot unilaterally waive the conditions, required to be performed and it cannot be construed that conditions required to be performed were only for the benefit of the respondent. No right can be claimed without fulfillment of requisite conditions, that too by or before 31st May, 1989. Therefore, the allotment per-se creates no enforceable rights unless requisite conditions were met / performed – which requirement is a condition precedent and survival of the agreement is dependent thereupon. Reference is made to judgment reported as “G.R. Syed Vs. Muhammad Afzaal” (PLD 2007 Lahore 93), wherein distinction was drawn between condition precedent and condition subsequent, in the light whereof the requisite conditions referred in allotment letter are conditions precedent. It is evident from the contents of the allotment letter that in case of non-fulfilment of the formalities / conditions till a specific date, allotment would be deemed or treated as canceled, without any overt act on the part of the petitioners. Both the courts below have failed to appreciate the fact that allotment was conditional and unless such conditions were fulfilled, no vested right or conclusive allotment can be claimed by the allottee. The contents of the allotment letter speak for itself; and so, does factum of nonfulfilment of requsite conditions.

Used In Judgement of
Lahore High court
 Civil Revision-Civil Revision (Against Decree)
495-11

2019 LHC 4072