KHAN ASHFAQUE UR REHMAN KHAN vs MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUE And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the High Court judgment dismissing the petitioner's writ petition regarding the auction of Government land. The auction, conducted on September 5, 1977, was approved by the Deputy Commissioner but subsequently refused confirmation by the Board of Revenue, whose review dismissal led to a constitutional petition in the High Court. The core legal question is whether the Board of Revenue is bound by the rules of natural justice to afford a hearing to the auction purchaser before refusing to confirm a land auction. The Supreme Court held that the confirmation or refusal to confirm an auction falls within the discretion of the Board of Revenue, which can be exercised without granting a hearing to the petitioner. The key principle laid down is that the confirmation of a government land auction is a matter of administrative discretion exercisable without affording a mandatory opportunity of hearing to the auction purchaser.
- Whether the Board of Revenue is required to afford a hearing to an auction purchaser before refusing to confirm a government land auction?
- Is the confirmation or refusal to confirm a government land auction by the Board of Revenue a matter of administrative discretion?
- Does the failure to hear an auction purchaser prior to refusing auction confirmation violate the rules of natural justice?
ORDER
ASLAM RIAZ HUSSAIN, J.--Petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 13-2-1980, dismissing his writ petition relating to the auction of certain Government land in petitioner's favour.
2. The auction took place on 5-9-1977 which was approved by the Deputy Commissioner. But subsequently, however, the Board of Revenue refused to confirm it. The petitioner challenged the order of the Board of Revenue through a review application against the same but it was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The petitioner then challenged the said orders through a Constitution petition which was rejected by the impugned judgment.
3. The only contention raised by the petitioner's counsel before us is that before refusing to confirm the auction in petitioner's favour he had not been heard by the Member Board of Revenue, which according to him violates the rule of natural justice.
4. We are not inclined to agree with this contention as it was the discretion of the Board of Revenue to confirm or refuse to confirm the auction, without hearing him. In this view of the matter the petition is dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.