MUHAMMAD ZIAUL HAQ Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB
This petition for leave to appeal arose from a civil suit wherein the petitioners partially succeeded in protecting an allotment of land granted to their father up to 121 acres, while the remaining area allotted in excess was resumed by the government. The core legal questions pertained to whether an allotment made by a Revenue Minister in excess of the statutory ceiling under the Statement of Conditions 1949 could be protected on grounds of passage of time, investment made, or lack of prior notice. The Supreme Court held that statutory functionaries are bound to implement relevant schemes rather than ignore or subvert them; thus, an illegal allotment exceeding the prescribed statutory limit cannot be legally validated by the passage of time or ignorance of law. Furthermore, the court held that any requirement of natural justice regarding a prior hearing was fully satisfied by the extensive proceedings and hearings conducted before the civil courts. Consequently, leave to appeal was refused.
- Can an allotment of land made by a Minister in excess of statutory limits prescribed under a Statement of Conditions be legally protected or cured by the passage of time?
- Does ignorance of law or investment made on land validate an illegal allotment made in defiance of statutory rules?
- Is the requirement of natural justice satisfied if a party, who was not granted a hearing prior to the resumption of land, receives a full hearing before civil courts of plenary jurisdiction?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.- -The petitioners, who have been partially successful as plaintiffs, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 9-7-1985 whereby regular second appeal filed by them was dismissed in limine.
2. At this stage, the case of the petitioners is that Dr. Abdul Haq, their father had been granted by the Revenue Minister land measuring 2 squares on Abadkari conditions on 6-5-1954. The order was implemented by the Deputy Commissioner, Rahim Yar Khan on 30-3-1955. By personal efforts and after investing huge amount, land was improved and brought under cultivation. By decisions subsequently taken, it was decided to limit the allotment to 121 acres and to resume the remainder. This brought the petitioners and others similarly affected to the civil Court where the matter was contested and by a Ali Sher v. Bilqees Begum (Mian Burhanuddin Khan, J) decision dated 26-11-1983 the suit was partially decreed inasmuch as the allotment to the extent of 121 acres was protected as it was found to be in accordance with the statement of conditions on which grant of land was to be made by the Government as notified in 1949 (Exh.P.1). This judgment has been maintained in first and second appeal.
3. Mr. Muhammad Ismail Qureshi, Advocate, the learned counsel for the petitioners, contended that the Revenue Minister, who made the allotment of two squares of land was fully authorised to make that allotment notwithstanding the Statement of Conditions placing such a limit. It was also contended that just as in a case of fraud by the tenant in obtaining land, it cannot be resumed after lapse of a time, similarly even if a mistake has been committed by the Revenue Minister, the land could not be resumed to correct that mistake. Finally, it was contended that before resuming the land or any part of it, right of hearing should have been extended to the petitioners for they could have shown good cause for protecting the rest of the allotment or obtaining greater relief.
4. The Statement of Conditions of 1949 referred to and relied upon by all the Courts does contain a ceiling of 121 acres. The Minister was to implement this scheme and not to ignore it or to subvert it. Therefore, the allotments made by him in excess of the ceiling prescribed under the scheme could not be legally protected. The illegality cannot be blessed by passage of time or by the care and investment of the petitioners because ignorance of law either on the part of the Minister or on the part of the applicants' predecessor -in-interest cannot be of avail to anyone nor can it cure the illegality.
5. The analogy of fraud by a party in obtaining the land and the statutory provision preventing the reopening of such cases of fraud after passage of time is not relevant for curing the illegality committed by a statutory functionary in defiance of a superior statutory dispensation.
6. There is no express provision requiring hearing of the beneficiary before reversing an illegal act of a statutory functionary. At best it can be read into the statute as a principle of natural justice and that requirement is amply satisfied by a full dress hearing of the petitioners in the three Courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matter.
7. There is no merit in the petition and leave to appeal is refused.
S.Q./M-221/S Leave refused.