1994 PLP 1786 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FATIMA BIBI and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1786 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Lone and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FATIMA BIBI and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1786 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1786 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Lone and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1786 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FATIMA BIBI and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Ansari, Advocate Supreme Court with Ch. Akhtar Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 24th April, 1991
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal .from the order dated 19‑9‑1992, of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed in C.R. No. 541 of 1988). ‑‑‑‑S. 19‑‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), .Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell was decreed in favour of respondents‑‑‑Petitioner claimed that said agreement was hit by provisions of S. 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act: 1912 and that land in question being in colony area, even after conferment of proprietary rights upon him, his status remained that of tenant‑‑‑Any tenant of Government land to whom proprietary rights had been conferred could sell his land and no permission of Collector was required in such case‑‑‑Execution of agreement and conferment of proprietary rights were not denied by petitioner‑ ‑‑Leave to appeal being discretionary matter, circumstances of the case did not justify exercise of such discretion in favour of petitioner‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances. Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others v. Mst. Jhando Bibi and others 1992 SCMR 1510 rel.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.‑‑‑The land in dispute was allotted to Abdul Ghani petitioner, as an Islamabad Oustee under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. He executed an agreement for its sale in favour of Niamat Ali, who died during the pendency of this litigation and was substituted by his legal representatives, the respondents herein. It is discernible from the agreement that the petitioner was made part payment of the consideration agreed to between the parties under the agreement. The proprietary rights were conferred on him on 14‑4‑1980. Niamat Ali filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and after his death, as stated earlier, he was replaced by the respondents. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 21‑7‑1987, with which the learned First Appellate Court did not differ and dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 21‑4‑1988. The revision petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court met the same fate. It was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by order dated 19‑9‑1992. This dismissal is under challenge before us, and leave to appeal is sought from the order dated 19‑9‑1992.
2. It is argued that the agreement was hit by section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and thus the suit for specific performance did not lie.
3. The execution of the agreement and the conferment of proprietary rights on the petitioner are not denied. It is contended that even after conferment of proprietary rights his status remained that of a tenant. The latest judgment of this Court covering the law on the subject is in the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others v. Mst. Jhando Bibi and others (1992 SCMR 1510), with which the learned Counsel has been confronted. He vainly endeavoured to a distinguish it, but we are not persuaded by his submissions. Even otherwise, grant of leave under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is discretionary. In the circumstances of the case we do not feel inclined to exercise this discretion in his favour. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the leave prayed for refused. A.A./A‑1072/S Leave refused.