LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs ABDUL QADIR And Other
This petition for special leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court declining to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with a judgment of the Additional District Judge, which affirmed the trial court's decree in a dispute concerning a shack located in Alamgir Market, Lahore. The core legal question was whether the petitioner could lawfully cancel the allotment of the shack to the respondents' predecessor-in-interest without issuing a notice regarding alleged subletting, and whether interference was warranted regarding the final price of the property. The Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were correct, ruling that the cancellation order was bad in law due to the failure to issue a notice to the legal successors before cancellation, and declined to interfere after nearly three decades of inaction by the petitioner in determining the final price. The key principle laid down is that an order cancelling property allotment on grounds of subletting is legally defective if issued without affording a pre-cancellation notice to the successors-in-interest.
- Is an order cancelling the allotment of property for subletting bad in law if issued without notice to the successors-in-interest?
- Will the Supreme Court interfere in concurrent findings of fact by lower courts regarding property allotment and possession?
- Can a petitioner seek interference on the ground of unpaid final price after an inordinate delay of nearly three decades without indicating the final price?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--This is a petition for special leave to appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court whereby it declined to interfere in revisional jurisdiction with the judgment of the Additional District Judge, Lahore affirming the judgment and decree of the trial Court.
2. The dispute between the parties relates to a shack situate in the Alamgir Market, Lahore. There are concurrent findings of Additional District Judge and the trial Court that the shack was allotted to Ghulam Bari, predecessor-in-interest of the respondents, that the possession of the shack was delivered to the allottee and that he paid all the dues demanded from him by the petitioner.
3. The main plea of the petitioner at the trial was that the allotment made in favour of Ghulam Bari had been cancelled for subletting the shack. This plea was rejected by the trial Court on the ground that before cancellation no notice was issued to the respondents who had succeeded to his interest on his death and as such the order of cancellation was bad in law. Both the Additional District Judge and the High Court have affirmed the view taken by the trial Court and we see no reason to differ with them.
4.It is also contended on behalf of the petitioner that the respondents had yet to pay the full price of the shack as the one earlier indicated by them was merely the proposed price. It is to be noticed that the shack was allotted to Ghulam Bari on 15-10-1958. Since then almost three decades have passed. The petitioner has not so far indicated the final price. We are not, therefore, prepared to interfere with the judgments of the Courts below on this ground.
5. For the reasons stated above we find no merit in this petition which is hereby dismissed.