PROVINCE OF PUNJAB vs Mst. BAKHAT BIBI
This matter arises from an application filed by the respondent in the main appeal seeking a direction to restrain the appellant Government from raising construction on the suit land measuring 42 kanals and 3 marlas, which was allegedly taken into possession by the Irrigation Department without acquisition proceedings. The core legal question concerns the propriety of continuing an interim stay order of execution granted in favor of the appellant Government when the Government subsequently hands over the disputed land to WAPDA for construction and fails to provide proper instructions through its counsel despite court directions. The Supreme Court held that the stay order granted in favor of the appellant Government must be vacated due to the lack of cooperation and proper instructions from the relevant authority regarding the legal status of the land acquisition. The key principle laid down is that interim protection granted to a government authority may be withdrawn if the authority fails to assist the court or comply with directions regarding the subject matter of the dispute.
- Can an interim stay order of execution granted in favor of the Government be vacated when the Government fails to provide proper instructions to its counsel?
- What is the effect of handing over disputed land to a third party while a stay of execution is in operation before the Supreme Court?
- Whether the Supreme Court can withdraw interim relief when the appellant department fails to clarify the legality of possession and land acquisition.
ORDER
1. ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J-This is an application by the respondent in the main appeal for the issuance of a direction to the appellant Government to stop raising construction on the suit land.
2. The learned counsel submitted that the Irrigation Department took illegal possession of her land measuring 42 kanals and 3 marlas in Mauzia, Ahmadpur Mohna, Bahawalpur, belonging to her predecessor-in-interest, without taking recourse to the acquisition pro--ceedings. Their predecessor-in-interest, Mst. Bakht Bibi filed a suit for the recovery of the possession of the suit- land but the suit was dismissed by the trial Court on 29-6-1966. She then filed a regular first appeal before the High Court, which by its judgment dated 15-4-1978, reversed the judgment of the trial Court and decreed the suit in favour of the plaintiff-respondent (applicant). The Provincial Government then filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No. 45/78) in this Court. The execution of the decree was stayed by this Court by an order dated 30-7-108 which was confirmed on 3-10-1978.
3. Consequently, the land in question remained in possession of the appellant --Government.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant submitted that the appellant-Government has now handed over the land in question to WAPDA for construction of a colony. We called the representative of the WAPDA who submitted that they were merely contractors for the Irrigation Depart--ment and did not know whether the land in question had been legally acquired.
5. Mr. Bajwa, appearing for the appellate Government could not assist us properly and put forward the excuse that he was unable to get all necessary instructions from a responsible officer of the relevant authority, though he was earlier directed to get proper instructions.
2. In the circumstances, we are left with no option but to vacate the stay order granted in appellant's favour and confirmed on 3-10-1978. The stay order is consequently vacated.