Government Land

Brief facts of the matter were that the Province of Punjab (petitioner/plaintiff) instituted a suit for declaration and permanent injunction asserting that the suit land was government property under its possession on the basis of a possession slip dated 10.01.1973 and that a Government High School was operating on a portion thereof; the dispute arose when Darul Haq Trust (respondent/defendant) constructed shops on the suit land; the suit was dismissed by the Trial Court and the appeal was dismissed as well, leading to the filing of present civil revision petition challenging the concurrent findings of the Courts below

Held: The burden squarely rested upon respondent trust to produce cogent and reliable evidence demonstrating either that the impugned use of the land fell within the permissible scope of the original allotment, or that any lawful authorization had subsequently been obtained to vary its terms. However, DW-1 appearing on behalf of respondent trust unequivocally admitted during cross-examination that the land had not been allotted for the construction of shops

Respondent's defence failed to meet the evidentiary threshold required to justify the deviation from the original, restrictive purpose of the allotment

The conversion of land devoted to a public or religious purpose into commercial use amounted to an infringement of the petitioners' proprietary and possessory rights and a breach of the public interest in preserving land dedicated for communal use

Such conversion was contrary to the express terms of the allotment and was therefore unlawful

Any attempt to convert mosque-dedicated land into commercial premises, particularly without statutory sanction constituted not only a breach of allotment but an impairment of the religious trust and a violation of the fiduciary obligations attached to such property

Respondent trust was permanently restrained from further encroachment, construction, or use of the land for purposes other than a mosque, as specified in the allotment letter

Concurrent judgments of the courts below were set aside

Present civil revision petition was allowed, in circumstances.

Plaintiffs filed suit for declaration with the claim that malba of the house constructed on government plot was purchased by their predecessor-in-interest through a sale agreement; that a small private street of 12 feet, which was closed, was in their exclusive use since long and that the respondents forcibly fixed a new gate of their house on its back side in the said street despite objection and protest of the plaintiffs

Suit was concurrently rejected

Validity

Plaintiffs had sought declaration with the consequential relief on the basis of sale agreement that too relating only to the alleged malba on the government plot, which did not confer any right or title in favour of the plaintiffs

Plaintiffs had no right over the government property in terms of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877

Revision application was dismissed, in circumstances.

Report of revenue authorities not only belied the contention of complainant regarding illegal occupation of land claimed by him but also indicated that originally land belonged to government

Revenue report further mentioned that complainant got mutated government land under order/decree passed in civil suit which decree was obtained against government and the same was an ex parte decree

Government had filed application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. against such ex parte decree which application was pending adjudication

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court as the complaint was rightly dismissed

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioner company claimed to have a right to complete construction on land owned by provincial government on turn-key basis

Plea raised by petitioner company was that it had "No Objection Certificate" issued from Sports' Board and respondent whereas Sindh Building Control Authority denied issuance of any "No Objection Certificate"

Validity-Transfer of land by Federal Government or Provincial Government was to be regulated by law and land in question belonged to Board of Revenue/Land Utilization Department, Sports Board or respondent had no authority under law to enter into any agreement, hence desired "No Objection Certificate" could not be granted

Only Board of Revenue had the authority to grant land to any person on such condition as it thought fit

Plot of land had not been allotted to petitioner company by Board of Revenue, therefore, grant of land to petitioner by respondent was not in accordance with law

Petitioner company was not entitled for implementation of agreement of grant of No Objection Certificate from Sindh Building Control Authority

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

There was no bar in the Colonization Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 that land could not be cultivated through guardian or other sources.

Record revealed that rate of the disputed land per acre was fixed at Rs.4240 in the year, 1973, which was assessed by the Tehsildar with the aid of field staff and this rate was never challenged before

No cogent evidence had been produced in support of contention that in the year, 1973, the average rate of disputed land was higher than the assessed rate

Civil revision was dismissed by High Court.

Mala fides-Trial Court holding that appellants not being qualified for grant of rights in Government land under policy formulated by Land Utilisation Committee, grant of land to appellants by Revenue Court was mala fide-Conclusion, held, misconceived-Act done in exercise of power mala fide only when done maliciously, or for a .collateral purpose, and in fraud of power-Court having held impugned order not illegal or ultra vires could not call it mala fide at same time.

Allotment of-Classification made by letter No. P-24-F/50, dated 7-2-1951 explained.

Publicity through Schedule not adequate-Order can be set aside in revision, if interested persons had no notice of sale.

Grant of-12 acres minimum on same crater course.