1988 PLP 18 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB — Respondents
| Citation | 1988 PLP 18 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 18 (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 1988 PLP 18 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Nasim Hasan Shah, Javid Iqbal and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 18 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD and others — Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Maqbul Elahi Malik, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd July, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 11-2-1987 of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 2827 of 1985). --S. 30--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--State land--Sale by auction with certain condition which was not incorporated in sale-deed--Effect of--State land sold by auction with condition that if in future land became capable of irrigation from canal, petitioner purchasers would pay additional sum to Government--Such condition not incorporated in formal sale-deed executed in favour of purchasers--Canal authorities subsequently included land in commanded area requiring petitioners to obtain no-objection certificate from Collector for supply of canal water--Collector's refusal to issue no-objection certificate unless additional sum was paid--Order of Collector unnecessarily challenged in writ petition--Leave to appeal granted to consider contention that said condition regarding payment of additional sum was not enforceable as it was not included in sale-deed executed in favour of petitioners-predecessor-in-interest and as such Collector was not justified in withholding no-objection certificate.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners together with one Ibrahim offered the highest bid at a public auction for the purchase of about 73 kanals of State land. At the time of the auction the land was not receiving water from any irrigation channel. One of the conditions of the sale of the land was that if at any future time the land became capable of irrigation from a canal the purchaser would pay to the Government such additional sum as the Government might determine and that the additional sum would not exceed the difference between the market value of the land and the purchase price. However when a formal sale deed was executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners this condition was not incorporated therein.
2. Sometimes after the sale the petitioners applied to the Canal Authorities for supply of canal water for irrigating the land. The Canal Authorities included the land in the commanded area but asked the petitioners to obtain no objection certificate from the Collector for the supply of the canal water. When the petitioners approached the Collector in this connection he declined to issue the certificate unless they first pay the difference in price in accordance with the above-mentioned condition. The petitioners challenged the order of the Collector in writ jurisdiction in the High Court but without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the condition with regard to payment of difference between the auction price and the market price in the event of the land becoming commendable for irrigation purposes was not enforceable as it was not included in the sale-deed executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. That being so the Collector was not justified in withholding the no-objection certificate. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,
500. The appeal may be made ready for hearing with permission to the parties to file additional documents. M.I./B-17/S Leaved granted,