MUHAMMAD SADIQ And Others vs THE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Administrator
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the judgment of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' civil revision regarding the cancellation of land allotment. The petitioners' predecessors-in-interest were allotted land under the Tube-well Scheme by the respondent Development Authority in 1955. Following non-fulfillment of conditions, the allotment was cancelled after notices were allegedly issued to dead persons. The trial court and the district judge dismissed the petitioners' civil suit and subsequent appeal, and the High Court dismissed their civil revision. The core legal question concerned the validity of the cancellation notice issued against deceased predecessors-in-interest. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked force because record observations showed some petitioners were actually present before the authority during cancellation proceedings, and the point was not pressed or framed as an issue before the trial court. Consequently, the Supreme Court dismissed the petition for leave to appeal.
- Whether an allotment cancellation order is bad in law if notices were issued against a deceased person when the successors were present before the authority?
- Can a party raise a factual contention regarding lack of notice if they failed to press the point and get an issue framed at the trial court?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.-- The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 28-2-1981, dismissing their Civil Revision.
2. The facts briefly are that the petitioners/predecessors-in-interest had been allotted some land by the respondent (That Development Authority) under the Tube-well Scheme, on 12-3-1955, on certain conditions. Since they did not fulfill some of the conditions a notice was issued to the original allottees and the land was then cancelled. The facts thereupon, filed a civil suit against the said cancellation. The suit, however, was dismissed by the trial Court on 12-12-1979. The learned District Judge, on 22-12-1980, also dismissed their appeal. They then filed a Revision Petition before the High Court, which to met the same fate vide the impugned order.
3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that notices were issued by the Department against dead person namely their predecessors-in-interest, who could nor naturally be served. As such the order of cancellation, which was passed behind their back was bad in law. It is, however, apparent from observation in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the learned District Judge that some of the petitioners were actually present before the concerned authority, when the question of cancellation of allotment was considered. We also notice that the petitioners did not even press the point and did not get an issue framed on this question by the trial Court in this view of the matter we_ see no force in this petition, which is consequently dismissed.