Cancellation of Allotment

After cancellation of allotment of original allottee, petitioner filed application to purchase the property but the application was dismissed by Authorities

Validity

Subsequent purchasers of evacuee property from the allottee, whose allotment was cancelled and his title was completely extinguished, such vendees had to sail and sink with their vendors and they were debarred to claim any better title

After promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) (Amendment) Act, 2022 all evacuee properties stood transferred to Provincial Government for utilization for public purposes and same went out from the jurisdiction of Notified Officer, Chief Settlement Commissioner or Full Board to decide regarding permanent disposal in any manner whatsoever

It was only the Provincial Government which had a limited jurisdiction to utilize such land only for public purpose

High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Board of Revenue / Chief Settlement Commissioner/ Administrator (Residual Properties)/ Notified Officer, Punjab, as petitioners failed to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the order and also did not identify any jurisdictional defect

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of order passed Board of Revenue cancelling allotment of land in question in favour of allottee and subsequent transfer of the land in their favour through sale deedwhich land had come into the ownership of Provincial Government

Validity

Petitioners occupied and had sold valuable land, which was to be allotted to those who were entitled for such allotments owing to their sacrifice and miseries of migration in one of the world's most bloodied migration

Saga of allotment(s) against dubious settlement claims accumulated to the fortunes of those, who had the means and tools to frustrate the system

Object, of exercising extraordinary jurisdiction of judicial review by Superior Court(s) is to foster justice, preserve rights and to right a wrong

While exercising judicial review, a Constitutional Court may proceed in equity to set aside or annul a void judgment or enjoin enforcement by refusing to intervene in the circumstances of the case before it

High Court declined to invoke such power for petitioners whose hands were sullied by gross misrepresentation and fraud

There was no lawful order of allotment in favour of original allottee, who himself was non-existent, and as such, the first mutationwas of no lawful consequences

As a natural corollary, all/any subsequent transactions based thereon were absolute nullity in the eye of law

Sale deed in favour of petitioners was a dubious document and could not be relied upon for treating petitioners as 'aggrieved persons'

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as no case was made out for interference while exercising extraordinary equitable jurisdiction under Art.199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant/plaintiff company was aggrieved of cancellation of allotment of plot in question due to some alleged violations during construction pertaining to FAR

Validity

Neither any prior show cause notice was issued to appellant/plaintiff company for violation of Regln. 2.8 of Islamabad Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005, nor the same was discussed in Summary for Regularization dated 14-11-2017, wherein decision to cancel allotment in respect of subject plot was taken

Such cancellation of allotment of subject plot in favour of appellant/plaintiff company, vide Cancellation Letter in question was not justified on the ground of alleged violation of Regln. 2.8 of Islamabad Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005

High Court declared that Cancellation Letter was illegal, void, and contrary to law for having been issued without prior show-cause notice for cancellation of subject plot

Decisive steps had been taken by appellant/plaintiff company, when construction was carried out in accordance with revised building plan at subject plot pursuant to the approval granted by respondents/CDA to enhance FAR by excluding common/circulation area

Doctrine of locus poenitentiae could not be invoked in case of an illegal order

Approval granted to appellant/plaintiff company for enhancement of FAR by excluding common/circulation areas was not illegal as enhancement/deviation of FAR was permissible under Regln. 2.4 of Islamabad Residential Sectors Zoning (Building Control) Regulations, 2005

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Trial Court and suit filed by appellant / plaintiff company was decreed in its favour

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Petitioner was a Ship-Breaking Company which was allotted plots in Gaddani Ship-breaking Yard for beaching vessels by the respondents (Balochistan Development Authority)

Petitioner invoked constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court alleging that allotment order had been cancelled in clandestine manner by the respondents while it was facing financial crises

Validity

Petitioner was allotted two plots in Gaddani Ship-breaking Yard in the year 2012 and a lease agreement was also executed

During the first five years of the lease agreement, several vessels were beached and salvaged due to which no controversy arose between the petitioner and the respondents, which led them to renewal of the allotment for further five years, following execution of lease agreement in the year 2017

Rule 14(1) of the Rules 1979 manifested that after the allotment of the lease, the allotted plots could not be left vacant without a ship for more than four months, however, the same could be extended for further four months, but with the prior approval of the Authority in writing for good reasons shown after being satisfied for not beaching the ship within the stipulated period of four months and that if the Rule was violated the lease would automatically stand terminated

Furthermore, the relevant para of the lease-deed executed by the petitioner also provided a similar condition

There was no denial on the part of the petitioner and endorsed by the respondents that the last vessel beached on the allotted pots in the year 2017, but thereafter no vessel had been beached by the petitioner

Petitioner had not placed on record any tangible evidence to substantiate his claim regarding his inability, including financial crises faced by him to beach the vessels

Record revealed that after cancellation of the allotment of the plots-in-question, the same had been allotted to another ship-breaking company which had executed lease agreement, in consequence thereof a vested rights had been created in its favour, but the petitioner had not arrayed the said company as respondent in the present petition, which now had an infeasible right in the allotted plots

Moreover, the lease-in-question was executed in the year 2017 for five years which had elapsed in the year 2022

Hence, the lease executed in favour of the petitioner was no more in field

Allegation about cancellation of allotment order by putting back dates on the same in clandestine manner had not been substantiated by the petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Jurisdiction of Chief Settlement Commissioner to investigate the legitimacy of evacuee claim and to reverse the allotment orders obtained through fraud

Scope

Suo motu powers of courts/tribunals to review its orders obtained through fraud

Scope

Responsibility of the authorities to address and rectify the effects of fraud

Contention of the petitioner was that after repeal of the Evacuee Laws in the year 1975 the allotment had become a past and closed transaction, thus, the same could not be cancelled without associating him

Validity

Under S.10 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, the Chief Settlement Commissioner has the jurisdiction to adjudicate or investigate the legitimacy of evacueeclaims and if fraud is found in the allotment process, he can reverse the allotment order

Transaction had been proven to be bogus and fraudulent, thus, the protection of being a past and closed transaction did not apply to such fraudulent transactions, as the same were subject to review by the competent authorities and the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court could not be invoked to shield verification orders of claims obtained through fraud

Fraud undermines even the most solemn proceedings and any structure based on such fraudulent transactions stands automatically dismantled and any ill-gotten gains achieved by fraudster cannot be validated under any norms of law and any benefit/order obtained through fraud, misrepresentation of true facts cannot assume the status of past andclosed transaction and that illegal orders always remain vulnerable to the legal proceedings of investigation

Petitioner had failed to show that initial allotment was genuine and not fraudulent, thus, the contention of petitioner that he was not associated while cancelling mutation passed in his favour was misconceived on the sole principle that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings

Preponderance of judicial authority is in favour of conceding such a power to every authority, tribunal or court to suo motu recall or review an order obtained through fraud

This is based on the general principle that fraud vitiates even the most solemn proceedings, and no party should be allowed to take advantage of their fraud

There is no rational basis for discriminating between the powers available in this behalf to a court of general jurisdiction and those available to a court or tribunal of special or limited jurisdiction, as the impact of fraud is the same in either case

Responsibility to address and rectify the effects of fraud lies with the authority before which the fraud was perpetrated and even a tribunal with limited or special jurisdiction has the power to suo moto recall or review an order obtained by fraud

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Appellant / plaintiff got an apartment booked with respondent / defendant who despite receiving a substantial amount had cancelled the booking

Contention of respondent / defendant was that the apartment had further been sold to a third party

Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of appellant / plaintiff but Lower Appellate Court dismissed the same

Validity

Person seeking specific performance has to establish that he is enthusiastic and vehement to act upon his obligations as per the contract whereas the opponent is refusing or delaying its execution

Valid contract between the parties has an essential condition of consensus ad idem for settling all the terms of contract

Both the parties had consented to the terms and conditions of application form

Witness produced by respondent / defendant admitted to have not exhibited any original document regarding allotment of apartment in question to third party

Respondent / defendant did not receive any payment from third party in installment, whereas third party admitted to have paid price in lump sum

Such fact created serious doubts in the version of respondent / defendant and Trial Court considered such fact but Lower Appellate Court ignored the same

Subsequent vendee avowing bona fide intention could not be absolved from the duty of making investigations as to title of vendor, which inquiries included but were not limited to inviting objections through public notices in order to determine that there was no deception or foul intentions in transactions and he / she acted in good faith and with bona fide intention without knowledge or notice of earlier sale agreement at the time of his transaction and proceeded in the matter as a person of ordinary prudence before signing on the dotted line

High Court set aside judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court and restored that of Trial Court

Second appeal was allowed accordingly.

Estate Management Section of Capital Development Authority (CDA) can only cancel allotment or conveyance deed of such premises under non-conforming use, if Deputy Commissioner, CDA reaches to the conclusion that owner is guilty/liable for non-conforming use under the law and even persistently using building in a similar manner, despite passing of the order

Estate Management Section, CDA has to independently issue a notice to allottee before cancellation of allotment on the basis of order of Deputy Commissioner, CDA if no plausible explanation has been rendered by allottee within prescribed time referred in the notice.

Petitioner/plaintiff claimed a declaration to the effect that he was owner in possession of land as a purchaser vide mutation of year 1961 and also intended to deposit purchase price at the rate prevalent in that year

Suit and appeal were dismissed by Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court respectively

Petitioner/ plaintiff sought permission to file addition documents

Validity

Allotment of land was cancelled as the same was obtained by fraud and subsequent allotment by vendees was also cancelled

Petitioner/plaintiff had no right to claim to be bona fide purchasers

High Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings of facts recorded by two Courts below as there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence nor the same was suffering from any error of law

Decisions in civil suits between other parties would not serve any purpose as the same were decided on their own facts and could not be applied to the case of petitioner / plaintiff who failed to prove his own suit by any cogent or admissible evidence nor could cross the hurdle of limitation

Revision was dismissed, in circumstances.

Property in question was declared to be Evacuee Trust property and allotment made in favour of petitioners against their claim was cancelled by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board

Validity

Order passed by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board was never reversed by any competent authority

Property was declared as an evacuee trust property and such longstanding entries were also made part of quadrennial periodical record (Jamabandies)

Old entries in revenue record had acquired presumption of correctness under Art. 100 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984

Such presumption was not displaced by petitioner through any believable and trustworthy record

Allotments in question were made after target date i.e. 1-6-1964 and Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board was well within jurisdiction to take cognizance of reference made to him, who after proper adjudication rightly cancelled allotments of petitioners

High Court declined to interfere in cancellation of allotment as Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board did not commit any illegality

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of the order passed by Board of Revenue / Settlement authorities which was ordered to be disposed of through unrestricted public auction

Petitioners claimed that their predecessor-in-interest purchased land in question in year 1964 from the allottee and had been occupying possession of the land

Validity

Allotment of the allottee was cancelled and possession of subsequent purchaser had no protection of law which extended nil support to land grabbers and illegal occupants

Land in question was a public property which could not be doled upon any person through private treaty to extend favoritism, nepotism and for undue enrichment of individuals at resources of public which were meant for ultimate welfare and betterment of people

If disposal of land was desired by concerned Authority, the same should be disposed of through unrestricted public auction

Order passed by Board of Revenue was neither perverse, nor illegal and was without any jurisdictional defect

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Plot in question was cancelled on the basis of giving incorrect date of birth, as the same was a violation of criteria of allotment

Suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court

Validity

Letter to prove date of birth of plaintiff was issued by an official of Ministry of Information and Broadcasting to defendant-Foundation, wherein it was apprised that date of birth of plaintiff was 16-3-1952 and not 16-3-1942

Show-cause notices regarding cancellation of plot on the basis of mentioning wrong date of birth were issued to appellant-plaintiff and finally allotment of plot was cancelled

Appellant-plaintiff was not entitled to any relief as he failed to produce any convincing evidence in support of correctness of his date of birth like Birth Certificate, Matric Certificate, Service Record and record of National Database and Registration Authority

Appellant-plaintiff had violated instructions/conditions mentioned in brochure and provisional allotment letter by providing false and incorrect information/date of birth

Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Allottee never appeared before the Court as a witness and had failed to prove that he approached the authorities for completion of formalities/conditions

Allottee could not unilaterally waive the conditions required to be performed

No right could be claimed without fulfilment of requisite conditions

Allotment per se did not create enforceable rights unless requisite conditions were performed which requirement was a condition precedent and survival of agreement was dependent thereupon

If conditions were not fulfilled till a specific date then allotment would be deemed or treated as cancelled without any overt act on the part of the authorities

Courts below had failed to appreciate that allotment was conditional and unless such conditions were fulfilled no vested right or conclusive allotment could be claimed by the allottee

Impugned judgments and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed

Revision was allowed.

Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958 was repealed through promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

No fresh allotment could be made by Notified Officer/Chief Settlement Commissioner and if any earlier allotment of evacuee land was obtained fraudulently, he has inbuilt inherent power to investigate matter of fraudulent allotment of evacuee land

Fraudulent allotment has no sanctity in eyes of law and Chief Settlement Commissioner has jurisdiction to adjudicate or investigate genuineness of claim

If Chief Settlement Commissioner found existence of fraud committed in obtaining allotment of evacuee property, he can reverse such allotment order.

Petitioners were aggrieved of cancellation of their allotment and transfer of evacuee land by notification from Chief Settlement Commissioner

Plea raised by petitioners was that after repeal of evacuee laws, Chief Settlement Commissioner did not have power to cancel allotment as it was past and closed transaction and Settlement Authority was debarred to reopen the same

Validity

Held, since promulgation of Notification No. 236-66/ 948-R(L), dated 24-02-1966 treating urban properties of "Moza Amar Sadhu" as building site, there was no occasion with settlement authorities to make any allotment of land in question in violation of notifications

Notifications were still in field as same were neither withdrawn by authorities nor were set aside by any competent forum in such regard

Settlement laws stood repealed with effect from 01.07.1974 with promulgation of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Notified Officer under S. 2(2) of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 was restricted only to proceedings immediately pending before repealing Act or matter remanded by Supreme Court

Modus operandi was furnished in S. 3 of Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 regarding disposal of urban land under policy to be framed by Federal Government in such regard

Land was shown in ownership of Central Government whereas names of petitioners was written in Column No. 4 meant to show possession of cultivator

No copy of Jamabandi was placed on record to show that names of petitioners/ alleged allottees were written in column of ownership (column No. 3)

No mutation was available in record in favour of alleged allottee sanctioned in respect of transfer of ownership rights (tabdeeli-e-hukook-e-malkiat)

Entire record of all RL-IIs were sealed on 16-05-1973 under orders of competent authority due to imposition of complete ban on further allotment on account of declaration of all urban agricultural land as building site

Such factum ousted possibility of any allotment at Khata RL-II in favour of any claimant and such allotment was patently illegal

Colorful exercise was applied with collusiveness of parties to usurp valuable evacuee/State property

Protection could not be given to petitioners under past and closed transaction

Connivances of parties with adjudicator who had not enlarged his jurisdiction at his own whims and caprice and any such order passed by interested authority was coram non judice, void, tainted with grotesque motive

Such order had no legal protection and was not considered past and closed transaction

Alleged allotments in favour of alleged allottees were declared as bogus and subsequent alienees had to sail and sink with transferrer and they were debarred to claim any better title

High Court declined to interfere in orders of cancellation passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner as petitioners were unable to point out any perversity, illegality or jurisdictional defect in order passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Appellant claimed to have purchased plot in question and got transferred same in his name by Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation

Grievance of petitioner was that Foundation had illegally cancelled plot and had also sought compensation against Foundation

Validity

Appellant in fact claimed damages from Foundation for cancellation of plot for which he had named same as compensation

Single Judge of High Court rightly dismissed Constitutional petition as alternate remedy was available to appellant before appropriate civil court as same was against spirit of Art. 199 of the Constitution

Constitutional petition was not substitute for civil proceedings before appropriate forums on pretext of being not an efficacious remedy

Constitutional petition could not provide shortcut method for expeditious redressal of grievance of aggrieved party through bypassing courts below, provided under law for effective decision of matters after examining evidences on issues

Jurisdiction of High Court under Art. 199 of Constitution could only be invoked where no adequate remedy was provided by law and it did not speak of efficacious remedy

Adequacy and efficacy of remedy were dependent upon circumstances of each case as to what could be efficacious and adequate in facts and circumstances of the case could not be so in other

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra-court appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were purchasers of land from a lady who was a successful Mukhbar under Ss. 10 & 11 of Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958

Authorities resumed land on grounds that allotment was fraudulent

Validity

Order of cancellation of allotment on application of predecessor-in-interest of petitioner was sketchy and absurd kind of order and same was passed without proper application of judicious mind

Such order could not be made basis for allotment of land to a Mukhbar, therefore, Settlement Commissioner had jurisdiction to adjudicate upon matter on commission of fraud in obtaining evacuee land

Principles of restraintment laid down in instructions were applicable as subordinate authorities, in deliberated disregard to instructions issued by the authorities, passed allotment order of resumed land without obtaining prior permission from the competent authority

Such orders of allotment were patently illegal, passed without jurisdiction and were considered conclusively as non-existent in eyes of law

Entries of alleged Khata of RL-II in question, were prepared with reference to order of Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) whereas said Additional Deputy Commissioner (General) was never vested powers as Notified Officer in the Province of Punjab for disposal of evacuee agricultural land

Order of resumption of land, only showed recommendations by Additional Settlement Commissioner (Land) without ascertaining genuineness of pending claim of predecessor-in-interest of petitioners and arbitrarily made uncalled for recommendation without having any authority

Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners neither filed any application for obtaining allotment in respect of any pending units nor competent authority passed such order, even her claim did not come within ambit of "pending proceedings"

All subsequent proceedings on basis of order of resumption of land were passed without applying any judicious mind and were also made in violation of circulars/memorandums issued by Chief Settlement Commissioner from time to time

High Court declined to interfere in order of cancellation of allotment as authorities did not commit any illegality or irregularity

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

As per requirements of Notification No. 868/71/4083-PI dated 22.06.1971, initial payment of 25% was never made but only a token payment was made and that too on 01-01-1978

Agreement for lease was entered on 06.12.1979 however, requirement that 50% of land price should have been paid prior thereto was also not complied with

All such inconsistencies led transaction in question to unfortunate end envisaged by Condition 21 of Notification No. 868/71/4083-PI dated 22-06-1971 resulting in resumption of land under S. 24 of Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 without payment of any compensation whatsoever

No land could be considered as an exchange or alternative land and provisions of Sindh Government Lands (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000 were also applicable

High Court declined to interfere in the matter

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Plea raised by plaintiffs was that Trial Court omitted to frame proper issues with regard to protection provided under S.41 of Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Validity

Plaintiffs did not press such issue before two courts below where protracted trial of suit was conducted

Trial Court was to settle issues as per pleadings of the parties and plaintiffs were also contributory towards such obligations who remained quiet

Entire pleadings were in knowledge of plaintiffs and they were under legal obligation to prove the same by production of best available evidence during trial of suit

Plaintiffs failed to lead inspiring evidence who for such lapse could blame themselves and not anybody else

Original allottee himself appeared before revenue authorities while claiming that he was already awarded land against his entitlement whereas, allotment of suit property was result of forgery and fraud

Neither any protection could be extended to subsequent purchaser of suit property nor a fraud could be perpetuated

Plaintiffs failed to pinpoint any misreading and non-reading of material evidence available on record to declare judgments and decrees passed by two courts below to be illegal, unlawful and without jurisdiction

High Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by two courts below

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Petitioners were aggrieved of order passed by Notified Officer, whereby allotment order was recalled on the ground of fraud

Validity

Allotment order was obtained on the basis of forged document got prepared by unauthorized general power of attorney in favour of original allottees within urban limits against agriculture claim in year 1996, after repeal of Evacuee Laws

Allotted land was already declared as building site in year, 1973, and jurisdiction of Notified Officer was explicitly barred to deal with the affairs of such land/property in any manner whatsoever

Any order passed in violation of notification in question was to be treated as void and coram non judice, unjustifiable as urban properties could not be allotted against rural agricultural unit

Notified Officer had jurisdiction to re-open entire case to investigate element of fraud and decide the same as per law

Original transaction was unlawful, illegal and void ab initio

Every subsequent transaction based upon the same was bound to sink along with fate of the original

No illegality, perversity and irregularity in the order passed by Board of Revenue was found

High Court, in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, declined to interfere in the order passed by Notified Officer

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

Land in question was in the possession of respondent, who filed application wherein he requested for appointment of Superdar of the land in question

Land was got vacated by initiation of proceedings under Ss.32 & 34 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Both, petitioner and respondent, were not with clean hands

Petitioner being Lambardar of the village was allotted the land as Lambardari grant, but he leased out the part of that grant to the respondent

Receipt of payment of lease money and compromise arrived at between the parties, were irrebuttable evidence of such lease

Allottee was not competent to go into such agreement

Respondent had no locus standi, against impugned land

Petitioner, had even rendered himself ineligible to continue with the grant on account of violation of the terms and conditions of the grant in terms of S.24 of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Lambardari grant was cancelled and District Collector, was directed by Board of Revenue to resume the same in favour of State with immediate effect, which would be disposed of as per prevalent policy of the Government.

Petitioner, who was a Government Officer, claimed that he was entitled to occupy a Government residence at any station subject to availability of an alternate Government residence at his place of posting

Petitioner, alleged that official accommodation allotted to him, was cancelled and allotted to respondent illegally and unlawfully and that cancellation order and judgment passed by the Chief Court in the matter, was result of misconception of law and rules; misreading and non-reading of material on record

Validity

Government servant who owned a house in his own name or his spouse or dependant children, was not allowed Government accommodation as provided under Accommodation Allocation Rules, 2002

Petitioner had two kanals of land having constructed triple storey house, which was rented out at Rs.30,000 per month

Impugned judgment passed by Chief Court was well reasoned and well founded

Petitioner could not point out any illegality and infirmity in the impugned judgment

Petition for leave to appeal was converted into an appeal by Supreme Appellate Court and was dismissed

Impugned judgment of Chief Court was maintained

Petitioner was directed to vacate the Government residence provided to him.

Plaintiff in his suit did not specifically question the cancellation of his plot but sought a declaration that he be allowed to deposit the price of the plot in question

Plaintiff claimed that he was aggrieved of the value of the plot, but the question was as to why he kept mum for a period of more than one year before approaching the concerned authority for reduction of price of the plot

Plaintiff, in the meantime, neither approached the concerned authority for extending the dates of instalments nor paid all instalments, even under protest or otherwise

Even otherwise, having deposited the advance amount for the plot, the plaintiff had in-fact agreed with the price of plot in question

Besides the plaintiff by not establishing the school in time (for which the plot was allotted) had also deprived the people of the vicinity

Suit of the plaintiff had been rightly dismissed by the High Court

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Grievance of petitioner was that Capital Development Authority allotted plot in question for establishing educational institution but subsequently when petitioner had started construction the allotment was cancelled

Validity

Capital Development Authority Board approved 30% quota for educational institutions from outside Islamabad and remaining 70% for schools running in the Capital Territory

No other document was available with the Authority to establish that the Board had not approved policy to allot 30% of plots to educational institutions not established in Islamabad

When Capital Development Authority itself received application of petitioner, scrutinized it, entertained it and approved it by allotting plot in question to petitioner to establish school, received huge amounts from petitioner, put petitioner in possession of disputed plot, issued possession certificate to petitioner and approved its building plan, then the Authority could not assert that some other policy was formulated

High Court declared the order of cancelling allotment and return of pay orders to petitioner to be null and void and set aside cancellation order

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

Contention of defendant was that plaintiffs were bound to send notice to the Registrar before filing suit against the society

Validity

Plaintiffs were members of society and byelaws of the society were binding on them

Allotment of plots was cancelled on the basis of scrutiny of file by the society

Plaintiffs were at issue with the society and dispute was of civil nature with regard to business of society

Society had allotted plots to the plaintiffs and had cancelled the same by acting on its byelaws

If allotment of plots to its members was the business of society then cancellation of said allotment on scrutiny of files of its members on findings that allotments were in violation of byelaws or any other relevant rules and regulation was also business of society

Dispute should be referred to the Registrar for its resolution being a mandatory requirement of S. 54 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925

Registrar of Society was empowered to decide even complicated question of law and facts

Plaintiffs should have taken their dispute with the society to the Registrar and if they were not willing to avail arbitration for redressal of their grievance then they were bound to send notice to Registrar before filing suit against the Society

Plaintiffs had not sent any notice to the Registrar, Co-operative Societies that they were aggrieved by action of the society and they proposed to take the Society to the court

Ss. 54 & 70 of Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 had provided first a statutory remedy of arbitration to the aggrieved party and then to avail jurisdiction of civil court to try such dispute of civil nature

Courts were not supposed to assume the jurisdiction of competent forum available within the statute governing the issues and relations between the parties

Civil court could not try and adjudicate the dispute with regard to business of a society

Civil court could not usurp the power of statutory forum to take cognizance of such dispute of civil nature in presence of such statutory forum

Plaint was rejected in circumstances.

Arbitration clause having been provided in the contract/agreement deed for resolution of any dispute or difference arising out of the deed, constitutional petition was not maintainable.

Defendants' plea that the lessees' cultivation of former tenancy was less than 50% was not supported by their own witness

Defendants had failed to bring any material on the record to substantiate their plea of fraud or misrepresentation or non-eligibility

Non availability of record had no adverse effect on the allottees' rights

Member Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment or rescind the conveyance deed

Proceedings taken by Member Board of Revenue under S. 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 were without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Conveyance deed was executed in favour of allottee who had acquired proprietary rights after payment of the consideration amount

On completion of purchase and execution of conveyance deed the parties seized to be governed by any condition

No sufficient ground or jurisdiction existed with the Member Board of Revenue to invoke the suo motu jurisdiction

No misreading or non-reading of the evidence in concurrent findings of the courts below, jurisdictional error, factual or legal infirmity in the impugned judgments and decrees was found

Defendants had no case to invoke revisional jurisdiction of the High Court

Revision was dismissed.

Petitioner was allotted a house by the Housing Foundation, however, upon the petitioner's failure to make the due payment, the petitioner's allotment was cancelled and the same house was allotted to another member of the Housing Foundation

Contention of the petitioner was that in other similar cases, High Court had granted relief to defaulting civil servants upon payment of additional charges, therefore, the petitioner be given the same relief

Validity

Relief granted to other defaulting allottees was in cases where the property had not been re-allotted, and such cases were therefore, different

Eligibility and entitlement of the petitioner to be given a residential accommodation upon allotment at a subsidized rate, however, still survived and at best the petitioner could be faulted for not making the requisite payment on time for which she was willing to deposit additional markup

High Court directed the Housing Foundation, that upon payment by petitioner for the price of the house available for allotment, the petitioner's name be placed in the queue of senior allottees so that the petitioner may be provided a House within a period of six to eight months

Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.

Land measuring 1 Kanal, 17 marlas, was entered in the name of "Thakar Dwara", a place reserved for religious purpose by non-muslim

Out of the said land, 12 marlas was under the possession of the appellants, and remaining piece of land was allotted to a Bank by Rehabilitation authorities

Appellants filed application before the Custodian of Evacuee Property under S.18-B of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, on the ground that Evacuee Land could not be allotted to the Co-operative Bank

Said application was dismissed

Validity

Appellants had claimed that their predecessor-in-interest, was in possession of the said evacuee land for 35 years and had challenged the allotment of land to Co-operative Bank

Custodian of Evacuee Property, after getting approval from the Government, had transferred the property to Co-operative Bank, through a sale-deed, which was quite in line

Appellants on the one hand had claimed that 'Thakar Dawara', which was a land reserved for religious purpose, could not be allotted to any person and that allotment in favour of bank was unlawful; on the other hand, they claimed themselves entitled to the allotment of said land as local destitute, which was clear contradiction on their part

Appellants had failed to prove that they were aggrieved by any act of the Custodian of Evacuee Property or the Government

Nothing was on record to support the claim of the appellants

Writ petition could be entertained only on the application of the aggrieved person

Appellants being not aggrieved persons, their writ petition was rightly dismissed by High Court.

Land measuring 1 Kanal and 1 Marla was allotted under the allotment permit and Proprietary Rights Transfer Order was granted to allottee by Custodian of Evacuee Property

Appellant, allegedly forcibly occupied land measuring 2 Marlas, 3 Sarsais out of the said land and manoeuvred forged and fabricated documents i.e. an agreement and affidavit on the basis of which appellant succeeded to get cancellation of the allotment of occupied piece of land through an order issued from the office of Secretary Rehabilitation

Allottee filed writ petition challenging cancellation order, which writ petition was accepted by High Court

Validity

When the alleged false documents regarding surrender of. allotment by allottee were prepared by the appellant, allottee was abroad with her husband

All the proceedings for cancellation of allotment and making subsequent allotment in favour of appellant had been initiated in allottee's absence, which was clear violation of statutory provisions

Government under provisions of S.18(7) of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act, 1957, was empowered to cancel! the allotment, where it was proved on the basis of an inquiry that allottee had abandoned or had consented for cancellation of the allotment; and under S.18-13(1)(c) of the Act, Custodian was also empowered to cancell any allotment, where it had been found that the allotment had been made in violation of law or was without jurisdiction

Nothing was on 'record front which it could be ascertained that the allottee ever had surrendered or abandoned her allotment

Cancellation of allotment of allottee was nullity in the eyes of law

In case of surrender or abandonment of allotment, the person who was alleged to have surrendered, his statement must be recorded; presence of first allottee at the time of surrender and signature on the documents relating to surrender, were necessary, but nothing had been done in that respect

Before cancellation of first allotment and making subsequent allotment, first thing was the knowledge, appearance before the authority, statement or any valid document vide which surrender or abandonment was made

In the present case, each and every proceedings was made in absence of the allottee, which was void ab initio when the first allotment was subsisting, subsequent allotment could not be made subject to valid and lawful cancellation

Notification cancelling the allotment being arbitrary, issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, was rightly declared without lawful authority by the High Court

Judgment of High Court could not be interfered with, where no illegality, infirmity or irregularity had been pointed out to call interference.

Official accommodation was allotted to civil servant and petitioner being wife of the allottee, and herself a civil servant, was allowed to reside in the official accommodation with her husband by the competent Authority

Official accommodation in question was allotted to the petitioner on her application when the allottee (her husband) was transferred

Petitioner was informed that Chief Minister had withdrawn her joint allotment being contrary to allotment policy

Allotment order in favour of the petitioner had shown that earlier joint allotment order or permission to reside with her husband as joint allottee, stood merged in the allotment letter in favour of petitioner

Petitioner, in circumstances had become the sole/single allottee of the accommodation in question

Impugned letter had shown that authorities had cancelled petitioner's joint allotment, which in fact was not the joint allotment, but was an allotment independently made to the petitioner

Petitioner being resident in the accommodation in question as allottee of the same under the orders of competent Authority, order whereby allotment of the petitioner was cancelled was against the facts and was without any lawful authority

Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Land in question was allotted to plaintiff but subsequently order of allotment was reviewed and allotment was cancelled by revenue authorities on the ground that the land fell within prohibitory zone/municipal limits on the date when cancellation order was passed

Validity

Finding of revenue authorities was violative of instructions of Board of Revenue, according to which limits of prohibitory zone should be measured as existed at the time of allotment in question, which was firstly on 4-12-1956, when the land was originally allotted and then on 30-6-1976, when alternate land was allotted and not when proprietary rights were to be conferred

Authorities did not produce any documentary evidence to establish that land in question fell within prohibited zone on the date of its original allotment or when alternate land was allotted to plaintiffs

Authorities failed to point out any illegality, irregularity, error of jurisdiction, misreading or non-reading of record/evidence in the judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court

Judgment and decree passed by Lower Appellate Court in favour of plaintiffs was in accordance with law and did not require any interference by High Court

Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

Counsel for the petitioners had contended that petitioners who had major shares in the subject land had not been heard properly

Counsel for the Border Area Committee had submitted that notices were issued to the petitioners, but they did not appear

Counsel for the respondent Border Area Committee, however was not in possession of any document showing service of notices upon the petitioners

Impugned order having been passed against the petitioners without hearing them, in the interest of justice, said order to the extent of the petitioners, was set aside, with direction that Border Area Committee would hear the petitioners and after providing them necessary opportunity of hearing, would decide the case afresh in accordance with law expeditiously.

Allotment of land made in favour of petitioners was neither challenged by department nor anyone else in any court of law and all orders referred by authorities were also silent about the same

Nothing was available on record or pointed out by authorities that petitioners had committed any fraud with department

Petitioners had applied for allotment under relevant scheme and after fulfilling all formalities and payment of amount as assessed by department, Transfer Orders were issued in their favour

Petitioners installed ginning factory on land in question after its allotment in year, 1993 with the approval of concerned Municipal Committee

Petitioners had thus accrued a right in such behalf, which could not be withdrawn at present stage on flimsy grounds on the basis of orders/letters which were found to have been issued without reasoning

Orders passed by authorities were set aside as the same were passed without lawful authority having no legal effect

Petition was allowed accordingly.

Claim in the suit was that plaintiff was transferee of suit land from its original allottee, but Board of Revenue cancelled allotment of original allottee without notice to the plaintiff who was subsequent vendee

Suit filed by plaintiff was concurrently decreed by Courts below including the High Court

Validity

In absence of any misreading or non-reading of evidence judgment of Courts below and High Court could not be interfered with, especially when all points raised before High Court found properly attended to and reasonably met.

Land allotted to plaintiff was resumed and there was no evidence / document on record which could show that before resuming land from plaintiff, any notice was given to him or he was heard by Collector at any point of time

Suit filed by plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court but lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff

Judgment and decree passed by lower Appellate Court was maintained by High. Court in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction

Validity

If there was no requirement for issuance of statutory or mandatory notice, even then plaintiff was at least entitled to a notice and personal hearing in view of principles of natural justice

After allotment of land favouring plaintiff, certain rights had accrued in his favour and he could not be deprived of those rights without affording him opportunity of hearing

Lower Appellate" Court as well as High Court had rightly concluded that plaintiff before resumption of land was entitled to a notice and he had been condemned unheard

Judgment passed by High Court did not suffer from any legal infirmity

Matter was decided not only on the basis of evidence available on record but same was also in consonance with law on the subject

Supreme Court declined to interfere in concurrent findings arrived at by lower Appellate Court and High Court

Leave to appeal was refused.

Authority, on application of petitioner for allotment of land in dispute to him and after obtaining report from the concerned Revenue staff, AC/Collector, ordered sale of land to the petitioner

Petitioner deposited sale price upon which mutation for transfer of proprietary rights was entered by Patwari in favour of petitioner

Subsequently Member Board of Revenue cancelled allotment of petitioner after obtaining report of Halqa Patwari from the name of the petitioner and ordered its fresh allotment after inviting applications

Validity

Land in dispute had been alienated to the petitioner after observing all the legal formalities, amount as assessed by the Revenue Department had been duly deposited, by the petitioner/allottee in the treasury after which mutation had been entered

Possession of land in dispute at the relevant time was also with the petitioner

Member Board of Revenue, in circumstances was not competent to order cancellation of allotment of the petitioner on the basis of any subsequent report obtained from the Halqa Patwari

Impugned order being not sustainable was set aside.

Amenity plot could not be converted into commercial plot.

Notice of demand is necessary to be given in view of para. 24 of Sched. to Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, before the order with regard to transfer of property is cancelled.

Land allotted under Tube-well Scheme cancelled due to non-fulfillment of conditions-Notices issued by department against petitioner's deceased predecessor-in-interest

Cancellation order impugned as having been passed behind their back-Some of petitioners being present before concerned authority when question of cancellation was considered and point not having been pressed before trial Court, order maintained by Supreme Court-Leave to appeal refused.

Second order of allotment having been passed behind back of respondent and without cancelling his allotment was of no avail and b nullity in eye of law

Exercise of power under S. 11 in circumstances, eminently justified not being circumscribed by any limitation and exerciseable independently of powers of appeal and revision

Finding of High Court being unexceptionable, upheld

Appeal dismissed.

Ss. 10 & 11-Cancellation of allotment-Allotment cancelled about 24 years back but petitioner challenging such order only after 24 years-Order of cancellation, held, cannot be taken exception to at' such late stage.

Ss. 10 & 11-Cancellation of allotment-No exception taken, by petitioners to entitlement of respondents and emphasis laid only on point of delay or laches-High Court holding delay on part of respondents having stood duly explained and basic order of cancellation of allotment being unjustified and illegal ex parte order (based on incorrect report of Patwari) no justification existed to deprive respondents of their well-deserved genuine entitlement-Substantial justice having been done and land restored to original rightful claimants no justification, held, existed to grant leave to appeal against such a fair and just order-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3).

Ss. 10 & 11-Cancellation of allotment-Respondent not getting any allotment in lieu of his claim in District S applying for transfer of his QPR to District G and getting allotment in such District-Statement of respondent as to having secured allotment relating only to village B and not to other villages-Allotments made in respondent's favour in District G except one made in village B, held, not liable to interference in circumstances.

.- Ss. 10 & 11 - Cancellation of allotments - Statement of allottee as to his claim having not been transferred to District G relating to only one village and not relating to all villages in District G but considered by Settlement Authority as having related to all villages Statement having been made in connection with allotment made in another case, vie. one made in village B, held, could not be utilised in connection with allotment of land in villages M and K and consequently allotments made in villages M and K not liable to cancellation.

Petitioner leaving behind in India only about 3 bighas of land but inadvertently his claim verified by Central Record Office for about 89 kanals-Petitioner taking advantage of such mistake getting allotment of about 28 acres of land in excess of his entitlement-Petitioner, held, acted fraudulently by taking unfair advantage of inadvertent mistake of officers of Central Record Office.-[Fraud].

Cancellation of allotment-Contention that Officer cancelling allotment having not been delegated powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner, cancellation was without jurisdiction-Held, not correct in view of incorporation of subsection (3) in S. 30 by Amending Act in 1958 expressly laying down orders passed by Settlement Authorities below Chief Settlement Commissioner in. exercise of any power delegated to them to be deemed subject to provisions of Chap. VI of Act.-[Delegation of powers].

Ss. 10 & 11-Cancellation of allotment-Land in dispute never allotted to appellants' ancestor nor appellants ever in possession of same- Contention that allotment in favour of appellants' ancestor having obtained finality could not be cancelled by Settlement authority, in circumstances, held, of no force and appeal resting entirely on such assertion must fail.

Ss. 10, 11 & 21-Cancellation of allotment-Powers of Chief Settlement Commissioner-Section 11 does not create or confer any right in any person to invoke jurisdiction of Chief Settlement Commissioner - Person moving application only an informant Cannot compel Chief Settlement Commissioner to take action under S. I.1-Such person, held, oat an aggrieved person entitled to revision under S. 21 against orders passed by Chief Settlement Commissioner or his delegate under Ss. 10 or 11.