SARDAR SHAH and another vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector and another
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a civil revision petition regarding the ownership of land. The petitioners claimed ownership based on an alleged sale under a Private Sale Treaty authorized by a Collector in 1966, following an initial lease under the Grow More Food Scheme. The core legal question was whether the Collector possessed the legal competence to allot or sell land that fell within the jurisdiction of the Cholistan Development Authority, established under the Cholistan Development Authority Act, 1976. The Supreme Court held that the land in question fell squarely within the jurisdiction of the Authority, and the Collector lacked the requisite legal authority to alienate such land. Consequently, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, ruling that the petitioners' claim of ownership was invalid due to the lack of competence of the allotting authority. The judgment reinforces the principle that land transactions involving statutory bodies must strictly adhere to the governing statutes and that allotments made by unauthorized officials are void ab initio.
- Does a Collector have the legal authority to sell or allot land that falls within the jurisdiction of the Cholistan Development Authority?
- Is an allotment of land made by an authority lacking the legal competence to do so valid?
- Does the Cholistan Development Authority Act, 1976, vest exclusive regulatory power over land within its jurisdiction in the Authority?
- Cholistan Development Authority Act, 1976
ORDER
1. ' TANVIR AHMED KHAN, J.---Leave to appeal is sought against the judgment dated 27-3-2002 of a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench, Bahawalpur, whereby Civil Revision No,310-D of 1988 filed by the petitioners was dismissed. The facts, in brief, as narrated in the petition are that land measuring 200 Kanals situated near ChakNo,314/H.R., Tehsil Fort Abbas, District Bahawalnagar, was given on lease for five years to the petitioners \ under Grow More Food Scheme on 30-7-1960 by an order of Collector, Bahawalnagar. Subsequently, according to the averments made in the petition, permission was granted by the Collector on 14-6-1966 for sale of the disputed land to the petitioners under another scheme known as Private Sale Treaty. The price of the land, according to the petitioners, was assessed and they started making payments. It isaverred that after the promulgation of Cholistan Development Authority Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), the Cholistan Development Authority hereinafter referred to as the Authority), came into being and tried to eject the petitioners from the land in dispute, whereupon they were constrained to file a declaratory suit with permanent injunction on 8-9-1982, which was dismissed on 5-12-1987. The petitioners filed an appeal against the above order which too was dismissed by the learned District Judge, Bahawalnagar, through his order dated 13-10-1988.
2. Revision petition filed by the petitioners also met the same fate and was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court through the impugned judgment. Hence, this petition for leave to appeal.
3. We have considered the contentions advanced by the learned counsel and have gone through the entire material placed on record with his assistance. It is an admitted position that the disputed land falls within the jurisdiction of the Authority. The alleged allotment or sale relied upon by the petitioners was not obtained from the competent authority as the Collector had no power to make allotment of the land falling within the jurisdiction of the Authority. The entire area is to be regulated by the Authority under the provisions of the Act. As already stated, the learned counsel for the petitioners has failed to satisfy us on the point, how the Collector could allot or sell the land falling within the jurisdiction of the C.D.A.? Since the question of competence of the Collector as well as the factum of disputed land falling within the jurisdiction of the Authority has been determined against the petitioners by all the forums, as such we do not find any justification to interfere with the same.
4. ' Resultantly, for what has been stated above, the present petition being without any force is dismissed and .