BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS vs Malik KHAN MUHAMMAD AND Other
This appeal arises from a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which, while disposing of a writ petition filed by a government tenant against the cancellation and resumption of his lease, directed the Collector to pay compensation for improvements made to the land. The respondent had originally challenged the cancellation orders, seeking a declaration that they were without lawful authority and requesting the grant of proprietary rights. Although the respondent did not seek compensation in his petition, the High Court, noting that the respondent had sunk a well on the land, held him entitled to compensation. The Supreme Court granted leave to examine whether, under condition 4(d) of the lease agreement, the respondent was entitled to such compensation. Upon appeal, the respondent did not contest the proceedings and did not support the impugned order. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal and set aside the High Court's order, noting that the relief granted by the High Court had not been sought by the respondent in his original petition.
- Is a court empowered to grant relief, such as compensation for improvements, when such relief was not specifically sought by the petitioner in their writ petition?
- Does a government tenant have a legal right to claim compensation for improvements made to land upon the cancellation and resumption of their lease, notwithstanding the specific terms of the lease agreement?
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This appeal through special leave is directed against the judgment dated 27-6-72 of the Lahore High Court, where--by while `disposing of a writ petition filed by the respondent, the Collector, Lyallpur (Faisalabad), one of the appellants was directed to pay compen3a--tion for improvement to the respondent No. 1, a Government tenant on resumption of his lease.
2. The respondent had challenged the orders of cancellation and resumption through a writ petition wherein he bad prayed that the said orders be declared as without lawful authority with consequential relief for direction to the Collector to the effect that the proprietary rights in the land in question be granted to him. The appellants had resisted the writ petition and had filed written statement controverting the respondent's pleased.
3. It is mentioned in the impugned order that on the day of hearing the counsel for the respondent did not render any assistance to the Court. However, the learned counsel for one of the present appellants assisted the Court and while giving the facts admitted that the respondent had sunk a well in the land in dispute and that no compensation had been paid to him. On this the learned Judge of the High Court observed that even if there was the breach of any condition, the Member, Board of Revenue should not have imposed the maximum penalty and that in any case the respondent was "entitled to the compensation for sinking of the well and the improvements made on land by him". Leave was granted to examine whether in view of condition No. 4(d) of the terms of the lease, the respondent was entitled to any compensation.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied upon the terms of leas agreement particularly clause 4(d) thereof to contend that the respondent could not claim any compensation. Learned counsel for the respondent has no contested the appeal and has stated that he would not support the impugne order. That being the case, particularly when the respondent had not even sought the relief granted to him by the High Court, we accept this appeal an set aside the impugned order. As the respondent has not contested the appellant a therefore, he is not being burdened with costs.