MANZOORA vs THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, KABIRWALA AND
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 27-11-1983, which dismissed the petitioner's writ petition. The petitioner, a temporary lessee of State land whose lease was briefly extended, challenged the subsequent allotment of the said land to respondent No. 3 under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme, claiming entitlement to proprietary rights under a 1979 notification. The core legal question is whether the petitioner possessed a legally enforceable right to the transfer of the State land under the relevant law. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner had no right to the transfer of the land in question under the relevant law, thereby refusing leave to appeal. The key principle laid down is that temporary lessees of State land do not acquire an automatic right to proprietary transfer or allotment overriding lawful allotments made under specific schemes like the Islamabad Oustees Scheme.
- Whether a temporary lessee of State land is entitled to the transfer of proprietary rights under a notification without statutory backing?
- Does a temporary leaseholder have a legal right to challenge the allotment of State land made under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme?
ORDER
' ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 27-11-1983, dismissing his writ petition. The petitioner was a lessee of the State land on temporary basis for one year from April, 1978 to March, 1979. The lease was extended for another year but the land in question was subsequently allotted to respondent No, 3 under the Islamabad Oustees Scheme. The petitioner felt aggrieved because he claimed that he was entitled to the grant of proprietary rights, vide a notification issued in 1979. He, therefore, filed a writ petition against the allotment of land in dispute to respondent No, 3 but the same was dismissed.
2. We issued notice to the Additional Advocate-General and heard him as well as the learned counsel for the petitioner at considerable length.
3. The petitioner's counsel has not been able to point out any flaw in the impugned judgment of the High Court while the learned Additional 4 Advocate-General was able to demonstrate that under the relevant law the petitioner had no right to transfer of the land in question.
' Leave is, therefore, refused.