MUHAMMAD HANIF vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and otherss
This petition for leave to appeal arises out of concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the petitioner's application for a temporary injunction in a suit for permanent injunction. The petitioner claimed possession of land allotted under the Five Years Cultivation Scheme through open auction, which was subsequently cancelled by the Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the petitioner established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction when the auction proceedings were declared fraudulent and bogus and had not been confirmed by the competent authority, the Collector. The Supreme Court held that in the absence of confirmation of the auction by the competent authority and where proceedings were deemed fraudulent, the petitioner failed to establish a prima facie case. The petition was accordingly dismissed. The key principle laid down is that a temporary injunction cannot be granted in favor of an auction-purchaser whose lease rights have not been confirmed by the competent authority and whose auction has been declared fraudulent.
- Whether a temporary injunction can be granted when the auction of lease rights has not been confirmed by the competent authority?
- Does an unconfirmed auction under the Five Years Cultivation Scheme create a prima facie case for the issuance of a temporary injunction?
' MUNIR A. SHEIKH, J.---An application filed by the petitioner for grant of temporary injunction, in the suit of permanent injunction, before the trial Court was dismissed by holding that he had failed to establish the existence of prima facie case in his favor, balance of convenience and irreparable loss. Appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed by the first Appellate Court against which revision petition filed by the petitioner was dismissed through the impugned judgment, dated 13-7-2000 against which leave is sought.
2. The case of the petitioner was that the land in dispute was allotted to him under Five Years Cultivation Scheme in open auction and was in his possession there under and he had spent a huge amount on raising construction over it, which was cancelled by the Board of Revenue through order, dated 24-4-1999, therefore, temporary injunction should be issued to protect his possession till the disposal of the suit.
3. We find that though the lessee rights in the land for 5 years were auctioned but it was not confirmed in favor of the petitioner by the competent authority i,e, Collector and the Board of Revenue declared the auction proceedings as fraudulent and bogus. The view taken by the Courts below that in such situation the petitioner could not be held to have established existence of prima facie case in his favor is legally correct for the auction had not been confirmed.
4.. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to persuade us that the orders of the Courts below of disposal of application of temporary injunction suffer from any illegality.
' For the foregoing reason, we do not find any merit in this petition and the same is dismissed accordingly.