Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: PROVINCE OF PUNJAB VS Respondent: GHULAM MAHBOOB
1988 S C M R 1195
1988 S C M R 1195
Present: Aslam Riaz Hussain, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Faisalabad‑ ‑Petitioner versus GHULAM MAHBOOB‑‑Respondent
Civil Petition No.1241 of 1983, decided on 13th April, 1988.
(From the judgment dated 2‑7‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Civil Revision No.1826‑D of 1982).
Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act (XLVII of 1958)‑‑
‑‑‑S.12‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)‑‑Evacuee property‑‑Transfer of‑‑Transfer of evacuee property which already stood transferred to Provincial Government by virtue of exchange of State land, challenged‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions that Central Government having sanctioned acquisition of suit property by Provincial Government, it did not form part of compensation pool and Settlement authorities were not competent to transfer it to respondent, anti that judgment relied upon by High Court was decided on its own facts and could not be invoked in order to deprive Provincial Government of its property which it had obtained by surrendering State land.
Writ Petition No.722/R of 1972 ref.
M.M. Saeed Beg, Advocate Supreme Court and S. Abid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Tariq Masood, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Date of hearing: 13th April, 1988.
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 2‑7‑1983 of the Lahore High Court whereby it dismissed the revision petition of the Provincial Government from the judgment of the District Judge which affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
The dispute in this petition relates to an ahata measuring kanals and 15 marlas situate in Chak No.224 of Tehsil Faisalabad. It was evacuee property. On 21‑8‑1964, it was transferred by the Settlement authorities to the respondent for a sum of Rs.16,366 on a permanent basis. Subsequently, the respondent learnt that by a mutation attested on 6‑2‑1963 the ahata already stood transferred it favour of the Provincial Government. On 5‑7‑1978, he filed a suit inter alia to seek a declaration that he was owner of the ahata and that the Provincial Government had no rights whatsoever therein. The suit was resisted by the Provincial Government on the ground that it belonged to it by virtue of an exchange of State land with evacuee property.
3. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the revision petition filed by the Provincial Government before the District Judge and the High Court remained unsuccessful. The Provincial Government now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of this petition it is stated that on its request the Central Government had by a letter dated 3‑1‑1985 (Exh. B .1) given sanction to the acquisition of certain evacuee property including the ahata in dispute by the Provincial Government. The notification by which evacuee land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of compensation pool expressly excluded such property in respect of which sanction of the Central Government for acquisition or sale b the Provincial Government had already been accorded. Consequently, the ahata did not form part of the compensation pool and the Settlement authorities were not competent to transfer it to the respondent. It is also contended that the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.722/R of 1972 upon which the learned Single Judge relied was decided on its own. facts and it could not be invoked here in order to deprive the Provincial Government of its property which it had obtained by surrendering State land.
5. The contentions raised on behalf of the Provincial Government need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to parties to file additional documents, if any. During the pendency of the appeal the interim order made on 7‑11‑1983 should continue to operate.
M.I./P‑40/S???? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.