1989SCMR1082 (PLP)
MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1082 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1082 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR1082 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Ghulam Mujaddid and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1082 (PLP) (MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Dilawar Mahmood, Advocate Supreme Court and M.A.Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Khalil Ramdey, A. G. Punjab, Naveed Sheryar, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch., Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 3rd August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment dated 29‑4‑1984 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in C.R. 440‑D/84). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Auction of unallotted evacuee rural agricultural land‑‑Auction of land was subject to approval of Deputy Commissioner‑‑Deputy Commissioner refused to give approval as on a complaint it was found that auction was held without publicity and was held in another Chak and cancelled the same‑‑Order of Deputy. Commissioner in not approving the auction proceedings, held, did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑An auction of agricultural land measuring 45 kanals and 11 marlas was held on 28‑1‑1976 under the scheme for disposal of unallotted evacuee rural agricultural land. The auction was presided over by the Assistant Commissioner. The petitioner offered the highest bid which was accepted by the Assistant Commissioner. Subsequently, the petitioner deposited the entire purchase price.
2. Under the Scheme, the auction required approval of the Deputy Commissioner. A complaint was made to him that the auction had been held without publicity and in another Chak. The Deputy Commissioner ordered an inquiry. The Inquiry officer found that the complaint was not without substance. In the circumstances, the Deputy Commissioner refused to give approval. The petitioner filed a civil suit for declaration that he had become the owner of the land purchased by him and that (he order of the Deputy Commissioner in cancelling the auction proceedings was illegal and without jurisdiction. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the petitioner's appeal before the District judge and revision petition before the High Court failed. He now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
3. We have seen the relevant Scheme under which the auction was held. Paragraph 4.1 of the Scheme states: Auction will be conducted by the Assistant Commissioner/E.A.C.O/E.A.S.O. of the respective area. The auction will, however, be subject to the approval of the D.C., C.O. and S.O. of the district concerned. Admittedly, in this case there is no order of the Deputy Commissioner or of the Colonization Officer or of the Settlement Officer approving the auction proceedings. After hearing the learned counsel, we are not persuaded that the order of the Deputy Commissioner in not approving the auction proceedings suffers from any infirmity. The petition is dismissed. M.A.K./M‑914/S Petition dismissed.