ABDUL HAMEED vs THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, LAHORE AND 2
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal concerning the transfer of the National Cotton Factory, Khanpur, which was auctioned and subsequently transferred to the petitioner upon his voluntary offer to match the highest bid price. The core legal question is whether the petitioner can retract from a contractual price he voluntarily agreed to pay to the Settlement Department after enjoying possession and making part payments for six years. The Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner is legally estopped from challenging the price he bound himself to pay and that his challenge was further barred by laches. The key principle laid down is that a party who voluntarily enters into an agreement to purchase property from a government department, takes possession, and remains silent for years cannot subsequently turn around and challenge the agreed price under the guise of statutory violation.
- Can a party challenge the price of a property transferred by the Settlement Department after voluntarily agreeing to it and making part payments for six years?
- Does a writ petition challenging a voluntary contract with a state department suffer from laches after a prolonged delay?
- Is a party estopped from retracting from a bid price offered to oust another purchaser in property transfer proceedings?
ORDER
1. WAHEEDUDDIN AHMAD, J.-The dispute between the parties is in respect of National Cotton Factory, Khanpur, which was transferred to the petitioner at a price of Rs. 6,52,.;00. This property was auctioned in favour of another person. The peti--tioner, in order to oust that person, offered to pay the same price which that purchaser had offered. His offer was accepted and he was given possession of the Factory. The petitioner did not raise any objection for a period of six years and made part payments. He enjoyed the fruit of the concern as well.
2. After a period of six years, he woke up and started challeng--ing the price which he had himself agreed to pay. His writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court.
3. The petitioner challenged this order in L. P. A. No. 57 of 1971 and a Division Bench of the High Court, by judgment dated the 28th June 1972, dismissed the appeal. The petitioner seeks permission to file an appeal against the said judgment.
4. The short question for consideration in this petition is he--their the petitioner can get out of the contract made by him with the Settlement Department.
5. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred the case of E. A. Evans v. Muhammad Ashraf (PLD1964SC536) and has contended that a party cannot contract out of the statute. It would appear that the petitioner's case is that he was an allottee of the Factory in dispute and the Department under the relevant rules could charge from him the market value of the property in dispute. In these circumstances, the petitioner's contention is that the Department should charge from him only the market value of the property in dispute. The case cited by the learned counsel is distinguishable. In the present case, the petitioner is estopped from challenging the price of the property in dispute. He offered Rs. 6,52,000 and bound to pay that amount. Besides, his writ petition suffer from laches. There is no ground to interfere. The petition is dismissed.