ALAM SHER And Others vs THE MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed a writ petition challenging the Board of Revenue's decision to eject the petitioners from land measuring 560 Kanals. The land was originally granted to the petitioners' predecessor-in-interest, Haji Fateh Khan, as compensation for land acquired by the Thal Development Authority. While a previous High Court judgment in 1967 had granted a mandatory injunction in favor of the petitioners, declaring them bona fide purchasers and preventing the Authority from resiling from its commitment, the Board of Revenue subsequently ordered their ejectment. The High Court dismissed the subsequent writ petition, reasoning that the petitioners could not assert rights against the Government based on the exchange effected by the Authority. Upon review, the Supreme Court found that the matter required further examination regarding the binding nature of the Authority's commitments and the Government's subsequent stance. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal and directed that the status quo regarding the land possession be maintained pending the final adjudication of the appeal.
- Is the Government bound by the commitments made by the Thal Development Authority regarding land exchange?
- Can a party be ejected from land after a previous court judgment has declared them a bona fide purchaser and granted a mandatory injunction?
ORDER
M.S.H. QURAISHI, J.--The disputed land measuring 560 Kanals, situate in Chak No. 13-B/MB, District Khushab, had been given to Haji Fatelt Khan, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners, under the award made by the Collector on 19-9-1955, as compensation for his land acquired by the Government for the Thal Development Authority. Haji Fateh Khan and after his death, the petitioners have been shown as Tabadila Girinda. Subsequently the said Authority wanted to pay them cash compensation and eject them from the land in question, which led to the filing of a suit for a mandatory injunction which ended in the judgment of the High Court dated 1-2-1967 holding that Hap Fateh Khan was a bona fide purchaser of the land and that the Authority was debarred from resiling from its commitment and that, therefore, the petitioners were entitled to a mandatory injunction. In passing, the High Court also observed that the Government was not bound by the acts and conduct of the Authority. It is submitted that the Government, subsequently, by letter dated 15-11-1976 decided to allow the petitioners to remain in the land on payment by them of the difference of the price to which the petitioners agreed but that the Board of Revenue by its order dated 4-10-1982 decided to eject them from the disputed land. The petitioners challenged the decision by filing a writ petition in the High Court but the same was dismissed by the impugned order dated 28-11-1982 for the reason that the petitioners could not claim any right against the Government on the basis of the exchange effected by the Authority.
2. After hearing learned counsel present, we are inclined to the view that the matter requires further examination,. Leave to appeal is, accordingly granted. Security Rs.2,000. The order of status quo already passed shall continue.