BASHIR AHMAD Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB
The petitioners sought leave to appeal against an order of the High Court dismissing their writ petition, which had challenged the Collector's refusal to issue a no-objection certificate for the supply of canal water to their purchased State land. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners had purchased the land at a public auction subject to a condition that an additional sum representing the difference between the market value and the purchase price would be paid if the land subsequently became capable of canal irrigation. Although this condition was omitted from the formal sale deed, the Collector withheld the certificate until the said difference was paid. The core legal question was whether the auction condition regarding the payment of the additional price remained enforceable despite its omission from the subsequent sale deed. The Supreme Court held that the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners regarding the unenforceability of the un-incorporated condition needed consideration. Accordingly, the Court granted leave to appeal.
- Is a condition of a public auction enforceable against a purchaser if it is omitted from the formal sale deed?
- Can the Collector withhold a no-objection certificate for canal water supply to compel payment of an additional land price?
- Whether the omission of a term from a sale deed extinguishes prior auction conditions?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J. --The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners together with one Ibrahim offered the highest bid at a public auction for the purchase of about 73 kanals of State land. At the time of the auction the land was not receiving water from any irrigation channel. One of the conditions of the sale of the land was that if at any future time the land became capable of irrigation from a canal the purchaser would pay to the Government such additional sum as the Government might determine and that the additional sum would not exceed the difference between the market value of the land and the purchase price. However when a formal sale deed was executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners this condition was not incorporated therein.
2. Sometimes after the sale the petitioners applied to the Canal Authorities for supply of canal water for irrigating the land. The Canal Authorities included the land in the commanded area but asked the petitioners to obtain no objection certificate from the Collector for the supply of the canal water. When the petitioners approached the Collector in this connection he declined to issue the certificate unless they first pay the difference in price in accordance with the above-mentioned condition. The petitioners challenged the order of the Collector in writ jurisdiction in the High Court but without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the condition with regard to payment of difference between the auction price and the market price in the event of the land becoming commendable for irrigation purposes was not enforceable as it was not included in the sale-deed executed in favour of the predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners. That being so the Collector was not justified in withholding the no-objection certificate.
The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs consideration. Leave to appeal is granted. Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,500. The appeal may be made ready for hearing with permission to the parties to file additional documents.
M.I./B-17/S Leaved granted,