ABDUL AZIZ AND Others vs DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, RAHIMYAR
This matter arises from a petition concerning the powers of authorities under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 to order dispossession of the petitioners and deliver possession to private respondents. The core legal question raised is whether sections 19 and 32 of the said Act can be invoked for resolving private disputes of title between parties. The Supreme Court of Pakistan observed that the point raised involves a substantial question of law of general public importance regarding the scope and applicability of the statutory provisions for private title disputes. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further, while directing that security be furnished and the interim order of dispossession remain suspended pending the final outcome.
- Do authorities under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 have the power to direct dispossession and deliver possession under sections 19 and 32 for settling private disputes of title?
- Whether sections 19 and 32 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 can be used to resolve questions of proprietary title between private parties?
- Section 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912
- Section 32, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act 1912
ORDER
1. NAIM HASAN SHAH, J.-The question raised is that the authorities under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 did no have the power to direct the dispossession of the petitioners and the delivery of possession of the land in dispute to the respondents under the provision of sections 19 and 32 of the said Act because it is contended that the aforesaid sections could not be used for settling private dispute of title. In this connection reference is made to Ata Muhammad and others v. Mst. Khurshid Begum (PLD 1964 Lah. 224) which in turn refers to Ali Muhammad v. Hakim (AIR 1928 Lah. 121) and Jiwana v. Mst. Sahbi (PLD 1954 Lah. 253). Although the learned counsel for the respondents attempted to meet this plea by referring to Ghulam Basul and others v. Muhammad Anwar and others (1969 SCMR 254), Abdul Shakoor and others v. A. S. Tasneem and others (1974 SCMR 463) and Muhammad Shafi and others v. Hayat Khan and others (PLD 1978 Lah. 1228), we consider that the point raised does involve a substantial question of law of general public importance. We, accordingly, grant leave to appeal.
2. Security in the sum of Rs. 2,000.
3. Interim order dated 9-9-1981 to continue meanwhile. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.