RIFFAT MASOOD vs CANTONMENT BOARD OF SIALKOT and others

ORDER

' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.--- Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment, dated 21-8-1998 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, whereby Civil Revisions Nos.976 of 1984 and 977 of 1987 filed by the petitioner were dismissed.

2. We need not give the facts of the case in detail as the same have been incorporated by the learned Judge of the High Court while dismissing the civil revisions. The dispute in this case pertains to the auction of lease rights of Plots Nos.27 and 28, situated on Allama lqbal Road, Saddar Bazar, Sialkot City. Since the lease amount did not commensurate with the market value of the plots, as such, auction proceedings were not confirmed. The petitioner filed a suit for permanent injunction. The learned trial Court after framing Issues and hearing the parties dismissed the suit vide its judgment, dated 28-4-1982 not only on the ground of competency of its maintainability but also on merits. The petitioner assailed the said judgment in appeal which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sialkot, vide his judgment, dated 23-10-1983. Thereafter he preferred aforesaid civil revisions in the Lahore High Court, which have been dismissed through the impugned judgment. Hence these petitions for leave to appeal.

3. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the documents appended with the petitions. We have noticed that the learned Single Judge of the High Court after elaborate discussion, has come to the conclusion that the petitioner has not complied with section 273 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, as no notice was given by the petitioner. The operative part of the judgment of the learned Single Judge qua this determination is as under:-- "In the instant case the petitioner/plaintiff initially filed a suit for injunction only which was later on converted into a suit for declaration. Since the relief of declaration could not be granted in view of the' bar of subsection (1) of section 273, the learned trial Court rightly found the suit as not maintainable, as the admitted position was that no notice in terms of subsection (1) of section 273 had been given by the plaintiff/petitioner. Since the requirement of subsection (1) of section 273 is of mandatory nature, the mere pendency of the suit cannot be treated as a notice to the Board and compliance of subsection (1). The view of the learned trial Court is correct and in consonance with the rule laid down by their lordships of the Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ilyas Hussain (supra)."

4. Even otherwise the petitioner would not have any vested right for confirmation of his bid if it otherwise does not commensurate with the market value of the plots in question. The learned Judge of the Lahore High Court through cogent reasons has affirmed the concurrent findings of the two Courts below. The petitions being without any force are hereby dismissed and leave refused.