Sh. FAZAL AHMAD vs ABDUL HAKIM AND 3 Other
This petition for leave to appeal arises from a dispute over the area of land transferred to the petitioner through a saltpetre factory auction. The petitioner, having purchased a factory site in Sargodha, claimed entitlement to additional land based on an area of 16 kanals mentioned in his Permanent Transfer Deed (P.T.D.), despite the actual auction being for 11 kanals. The Settlement authorities rejected this claim, and the High Court declined to interfere in its writ jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the Settlement authorities possessed the authority to amend the P.T.D. to correct a clerical error regarding the land area. The Supreme Court held that the plea was devoid of merit, affirming that authorities have the inherent power to correct clerical mistakes in their documents. Furthermore, the Court clarified that the issuance of a P.T.D. containing a clerical error did not entitle the petitioner to claim land beyond what was actually auctioned and purchased. The petition was dismissed as meritless.
- Do Settlement authorities have the power to amend a Permanent Transfer Deed to correct a clerical mistake regarding the area of land transferred?
- Does a clerical error in a Permanent Transfer Deed entitle a purchaser to claim land not included in the original auction?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-The petitioner purchased a saltpetre factory situated in Sargodha Town comprising an area of I I kanals of land at an auction held by the Settlement authorities for Rs.
2. 77,000. Later on, he laid claim to the transfer of the site of the adjoining factory also on the assertion that the area of the factory sold to him was mentioned, in the P. T. D. As 16 kanals. The Settlement authorities promptly rejected this exaggerated claim and the High Court has declined to interfere with their orders in writ jurisdiction.
3. It was not disputed before the Letters Patent Bench of the High Court that the area purchased' by the petitioner was 11 kanals, but it was contended that once a P. T. D. Was issued in respect of 16 kanals of land the Settlement authorities did not have the authority to amend its terms and reduce the area men--tioned in it to 11 canals. The plea was wholly devoid of force as it was a case of clerical mistake in the P. T. D. And the authority making it had the power to amend it. In any case, the P. T. D. Did not entitle the petitioner to the site of the adjoining factory.
4. The petition for leave to appeal is thus wholly without any merit and is dismissed hereby.