Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH VS Respondent: PUNJAB PROVINCE through Collector, Vehari and another
Court Name: Supreme Court of Pakistan Judge(s): Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal Title:NAZAR HUSSAIN SHAH vs PUNJAB PROVINCE through Collector, Vehari and
another Case No.: Civil Petition No,99 of 1983 Date of Judgment:1988-08-09 Reported As: 1989 SCMR 1060 Result: Leave refused Judgment ORDER ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Petitioner/plaintifrs civil revision, arising out of the claim for the allotment/sale of the Ahata in dispute by the Collector, having been dismissed by the High Court, he has sought leave to appeal. ' The allotment in favour of the petitioner, as stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner, was followed by the deposit of sale price. Notwithstanding the same, respondent No,2 filed an appeal against the allotment which was allowed, and the Ahata was allotted to him. ' The petitioner's challenge to that allotment having failed before the Colony Revenue Authorities, he filed civil suit claiming that he having become absolute owner, the Ahata could not be allotted to the respondent No,2. It was dismissed mainly on the ground that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction. However, his appeal and civil revision were also dismissed. He has now sought leave to appeal. ' Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that by making payment of the price in pursuance of the order of allotment of the Collector, the petitioner had acquired a vested right. Secondly, he contended that the delivery of possession together with the conditions in the Scheme relating to the allotment of Ahatas favoured the petitioner in so far as right to retain the Ahata is concerned--though learned counsel also admitted that there are several reported cases against his contention. After hearing the learned counsel, we do not agree with him that in the circumstances the petitioner had acquired any such right through allotment and payment of price; and that the appellate and revisional authorities on the Revenue side became denuded of the appellate and
---
## Page 2
revisional jurisdiction. Thus, the appeal against the orders of the Collector having been accepted and the petitioner having failed to successfully assail the appellate order, could not have succeeded before the Civil Court on the basis of the arguments advanced by the learned counsel. In these circumstances, therefore, the petitioner had no case to succeed before the Civil Court. ' His civil revision having rightly been dismissed by the High Court, leave to appeal is refused.