Acquisition of proprietary rights

2023 PLD 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30Acquisition of proprietary rightsScope

After confirming proprietary rights and registration of conveyance deed, allottee would become absolute owner of the land.

2023 PLD 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30Acquisition of proprietary rightsScope

After payment of full price of land such person becomes absolute owner of the same and property comes out of the ambit of Colony/Revenue authorities and after the grant of proprietary rights and registration of conveyance deed no further action can be taken by the revenue department including Board of Revenue

Revenue authorities cannot cancel the allotment of the land

Thereafter, under such circumstance, no proceeding can be done under S. 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and no order can be passed.

2023 PLD 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30Acquisition of proprietary rightsScope

After proprietary right and registered sale deed, the powers of the revenue authorities to review or to take any action regarding the revenue record/allottee, allotment of land on the allegation of fraud or any other illegality is against the law.

2023 PLD 564 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 45Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54Suit for declaration and permanent injunctionAcquisition of proprietary rightsRestriction on variation of entries in recordsScope

Respondents filed a suit seeking a declaration as to their ownership of the suit land and alleged that the order by the Board of Revenue whereby it had cancelled the allotment in favour of original allottee, was void ab initio and requested for a permanent injunction as consequential relief

Trial Court decreed the suit whereas Appellate Court dismissed the appeal filed by petitioners

Validity

Collector's order had confirmed the original allottee's proprietary rights through a registered deed

Original allottee had subsequently sold the land to the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, who had transferred it to the present respondents

Despite occupying the land since 1993, the revenue authorities had neither issued any notice nor raised any objection

Revenue authorities had failed to provide evidence that the original allottee was not entitled to the land or that he had violated the scheme's conditions

Original allottee had complied with the scheme, paid the required amount, and received Patta Malkiyat for the original allotted land

Revenue authorities had initiated proceedings against the original allottee but had not involved the present respondents

Provincial Government had no right to claim ownership

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967 stipulates that reviews of mutations or revenue records should be done within a specific time and if any fraud is detected it can only be challenged through a civil suit

Revenue authorities had no right to take action when the revenue record showed a registered sale deed and the names of the new owners

No notice was issued to the new owners during the proceedings

Board of Revenue's order, after the issuance of Patta Malkiyat and registration of the conveyance deed, was unlawful

Revision petition was dismissed.

2013 YLR 206 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2Acquisition of proprietary rightsTemporary injunction, grant of

Suit of petitioner assailing order of Member, Board of Revenue and grant of temporary injunction was dismissed by civil court and Appellate Court

Contention of the petitioners was that land in dispute was granted to them by temporary lease thereafter proprietary rights to the same had been conferred upon them by the Provincial Government

Validity

Disputed land admittedly was acquired for the Thal Development Authority, therefore, any surplus land would be the entitlement of the land-owners by way of return

Petitioners, in the present case, had specifically stated that they were tenants and not the owners of the land

Land could only be adjusted in favour of the land-owners, and the petitioners, in circumstances, were not entitled to the land

No proprietary rights could be granted to any third party as land did not belong to the Provincial Government

Courts below had rightly concluded that petitioners did not have a prima facie case

Orders of the courts below were based on correct appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto

High Court did not find any material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction

Revision was dismissed.