SAKHI MUHAMMAD vs CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT COUNCIL, SHEIKHUPURA AND ANOTHER
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a constitutional writ petition by the Lahore High Court regarding the cancellation of an allotment of land. The petitioner occupied a 12-marla plot of land owned by the Provincial Government under the management of the District Council, Sheikhupura, pursuant to a lease agreement dated 9 August 1977. Upon alleged non-payment of rent in advance and unauthorized construction, the District Council issued a notice directing the petitioner to surrender vacant possession. The core legal question was whether the petitioner possessed any enforceable legal right under writ jurisdiction to challenge the eviction notice issued by the District Council. The Supreme Court held that under the executed agreement, the petitioner was merely an allottee whose legal status was at best that of a licensee. Because the licence was expressly revocable upon notice pursuant to the agreement's terms, the petitioner had no legal basis to challenge the eviction notice under writ jurisdiction. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether an allottee occupying government land under a revocable agreement holds the status of a mere licensee?
- Can a licensee whose licence is validly revoked pursuant to contractual terms challenge an eviction notice through writ jurisdiction?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AKRAM, J.-A plot of land measuring 12 marlas comprised in Killa No. 11/2 of Square No. 17 situated in village Buchaiki, Tehsil Nankana Sahib, District Sheikhupura belongs to the Provincial Government and its management is vested in the District Council Sheikhupura. It is stated that the petitioner has been in occupation of this plot under the District Council for the last seven years. In respect of the year 1976-77 the plot was allotted to the petitioner by the District Council on the terms and conditions of the agreement dated 9th of August 1977 executed by him in favour of the District Council. It was agreed by the petitioner that he shall be liable to pay the annual rent at the rate of Rs. 60 per mensem, that the future yearly rent shall be payable in advance and that he shall be liable to ejectment on one month's notice served by the District Council. His allotment was also liable to be cancelled forthwith for any breach of the terms of the agreement. On the 31st of August 1978 the District Council served a notice on the petitioner alleging that he had failed to pay the rent for the year 1976-77 in advance in spite of the notice and that he bad raised unauthorised construction on the site. He was therefore, directed to remove the superstructure and surrender vacant possession of the premises to the District Council within seven days.
2. The petitioner then challenged the validity of this notice served on him in writ jurisdiction mainly on the ground that under the said agreement of lease he was not liable to ejectment arbitrarily. But on the 30th of September 1978, a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court at Lahore dismissed the writ petition. The petitioner has therefore, filed this petition for special leave from the judgment of the High Court.
3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. From the agreement dated 9th of August 1977 admittedly executed by the petitioner in favour of the District Council we have no hesitation in holding that he was merely an allottee of the plot of the land under the District Council and his status at best was that of a mere licensee under the respondent. The licence was evidently revocable on one month's notice as laid down in the agreement itself. In the circumstances; the petitioner could not in law challenge the validity of the notice thus served on him for his ejectment from the premises and the High Court has rightly refused to interfere in the matter. This petition has therefore, no force and is hereby dismissed.