1989SCMR1528 (PLP)
PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Petitioner Versus MAND and 6 others Respondents
| Citation | 1989SCMR1528 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ‑‑‑S.16, proviso as amended by Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1978)‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether omission of the proviso in 1978 could affect the order of cancellation which had been passed 11 years earlier and whether after the respondents had been found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, could they be permitted to seek the equitable relief of declaration under S.42 of Specific Relief Act from a Civil Court. |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Petitioner Versus MAND and 6 others Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (v of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR1528 (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 1989SCMR1528 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ‑‑‑S.16, proviso as amended by Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1978)‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether omission of the proviso in 1978 could affect the order of cancellation which had been passed 11 years earlier and whether after the respondents had been found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, could they be permitted to seek the equitable relief of declaration under S.42 of Specific Relief Act from a Civil Court. bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR1528 (PLP) (PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB Petitioner Versus MAND and 6 others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Abdul Bajwa, Advocate Supreme Court and SAbid Nawaz, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th August, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment and order, dated 4‑7‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, in Civil Revision No.200‑D of 1982). ‑‑‑S.16, proviso [as amended by Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) (Amendment) Ordinance (XII of 1978)]‑‑Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42‑ Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑Leave to appeal granted to consider whether omission of the proviso in 1978 could affect the order of cancellation which had been passed 11 years earlier and whether after the respondents had been found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, could they be permitted to seek the equitable relief of declaration under S.42 of Specific Relief Act from a Civil Court.
Judgment & Decree
SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The respondents obtained allotment of State agricultural land under the Ejectment of Tenants Scheme. By an order, dated 3‑7‑1968 the Collector cancelled the allotment on the ground that the same had been obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. They filed a civil suit to challenge the order of the Collector. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court whereupon they filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and held the order of the Collector to be illegal; accordingly, he declared that the respondents were entitled to obtain proprietary rights in the land in dispute. The Provincial Government filed a revision petition before the High Court but it was dismissed. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Apparently, while cancelling the allotment of the respondents the Collector had acted under the proviso to Section 16, Colonization of Government Lands Act. By Ordinance XII of 1978 this proviso was omitted with retrospective effect. One of the considerations which weighed with the High Court in dismissing the revision petition was that the Collector's order of cancellation could not be based on the said proviso. The Provincial Government seeks leave to appeal to inter alia, call in question the correctness of the view taken by the High Court.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to consider; (a) whether the omission of the proviso in 1978 could affect the order of cancellation which Lad been made 11 years earlier; and (b) after the respondents had been found guilty of fraud and A misrepresentation, could they be permitted to seek the equitable relief of declaration under section 42 of the Spec Relief Act from a Civil Court. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents, if any. M.A.K./P‑96/S Leave granted.