PROVINCE OF PUNJAB Versus GHULAM MAHBOOB
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from a civil dispute concerning the ownership of an ahata measuring 4 kanals and 15 marlas in Tehsil Faisalabad, originally classified as evacuee property. The respondent purchased the property from Settlement authorities in 1964. However, the Provincial Government claimed ownership based on an earlier mutation from 1963, asserting that the property had been acquired through an exchange of State land with evacuee property and thus did not form part of the compensation pool. The trial court, the District Judge, and the Lahore High Court all ruled in favor of the respondent, declaring him the owner. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal, arguing that the Central Government had sanctioned the acquisition of this property by the Province prior to its inclusion in the compensation pool, rendering the Settlement authorities incompetent to transfer it. The Supreme Court found that the contentions raised by the Provincial Government required detailed examination. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to consider the validity of the transfer and the status of the property.
- Whether property sanctioned for acquisition by the Provincial Government from the Central Government can be legally transferred by Settlement authorities as part of the compensation pool?
- Does the prior mutation of evacuee property in favor of the Provincial Government preclude its subsequent transfer to a private party by Settlement authorities?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. ‑‑This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order, dated 2‑7‑1983 of the Lahore High Court whereby it dismissed the revision petition of the Provincial Government from the judgment of the District Judge which affirmed the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
The dispute in this petition relates to an ahata measuring kanals and 15 marlas situate in Chak No.224 of Tehsil Faisalabad. It was evacuee property. On 21‑8‑1964, it was transferred by the Settlement authorities to the respondent for a sum of Rs.16,366 on a permanent basis. Subsequently, the respondent learnt that by a mutation attested on 6‑2‑1963 the ahata already stood transferred it favour of the Provincial Government. On 5‑7‑1978, he filed a suit inter alia to seek a declaration that he was owner of the ahata and that the Provincial Government had no rights whatsoever therein. The suit was resisted by the Provincial Government on the ground that it belonged to it by virtue of an exchange of State land with evacuee property.
3. The suit was decreed by the trial Court and the revision petition filed by the Provincial Government before the District Judge and the High Court remained unsuccessful. The Provincial Government now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
4. In support of this petition it is stated that on its request the Central Government had by a letter dated 3‑1‑1985 (Exh. B .1) given sanction to the acquisition of certain evacuee property including the ahata in dispute by the Provincial Government. The notification by which evacuee land was acquired by the Government for the purpose of compensation pool expressly excluded such property in respect of which sanction of the Central Government for acquisition or sale b the Provincial Government had already been accorded. Consequently, the ahata did not form part of the compensation pool and the Settlement authorities were not competent to transfer it to the respondent. It is also contended that the judgment of the High Court in Writ Petition No.722/R of 1972 upon which the learned Single Judge relied was decided on its own. facts and it could not be invoked here in order to deprive the Provincial Government of its property which it had obtained by surrendering State land.
5. The contentions raised on behalf of the Provincial Government need examination. Leave to appeal is granted. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to parties to file additional documents, if any. During the pendency of the appeal the interim order made on 7‑11‑1983 should continue to operate.
M.I./P‑40/S ???? ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.