GOJRA FLOUR MILLS, GOJRA AND Another vs GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the Lahore High Court's dismissal in limine of a constitutional petition concerning the revocation of a contract for the sale of State land. The core legal question involved whether the Board of Revenue lawfully revoked the contract without notice due to non-payment of the price, where the determination and payment mode were allegedly delayed by the respondents. The Supreme Court held that it would be futile to decide the case on merits while related proceedings, including a revision before the Board of Revenue challenging the Collector's order, remained pending or undecided. Consequently, the Court refused leave to appeal, leaving the parties to pursue their remedies through the competent administrative authorities.
- Whether leave to appeal should be granted when related proceedings challenging the underlying order are still pending before the Board of Revenue?
- Can a contract for the sale of State land be revoked without notice on the ground of non-payment of price?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought from the order dated 23-12-1975 of the Lahore High Court, whereby a constitutional petition arising out of the sale of a State land, was dismissed 14, limine.
2. It was the case of the petitioners before the High Court, that a contract foe 'sale of State land to the petitioner company through Muhammad Amin, proprietor was completed subject to determination and due payment of the price. And that the determination and mode of payment as requested on instalments, was delayed from the respondents' side and for no fault of the petitioner, the contract was revoked by the Board of Revenue without notice on ground of non-payment of price.
3. The formal order it is not denied was passed by the Collector. The said Order of the Collector it is stated was challenged and a revision is either pending or has been decided by the-Board of Revenue. The learned counsel was unable to contest the position that it would be futile to decide this case on merits when the fate of the other above-referred proceedings is not known .
4. With these observations we do not consider it a fit case for leave to appeal. The same is accordingly refused. 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.