MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE And Others vs THE BORDER AREA COMMITTEE, LAHORE
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which dismissed the petitioners' writ petition challenging the cancellation of their land allotment by the Border Area Committee. The predecessor-in-interest of the petitioners was allotted agricultural land in Kasur, which the Border Area Committee subsequently cancelled on grounds of competency and the transfer date of the claim. Although the High Court found that the Border Area Committee lacked jurisdiction over land falling within the urban area, it nevertheless dismissed the writ petition based on conjectural assumptions regarding the genuineness of the claim. The core legal question concerns whether the High Court, having determined a lack of jurisdiction in the canceling authority, erred in denying relief based on extraneous assumptions. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, holding that the contentions raised require detailed examination regarding the propriety of the High Court's refusal to grant relief despite finding a lack of jurisdiction.
- Whether the Border Area Committee has jurisdiction to cancel an allotment of land falling within an urban area?
- Can the High Court decline relief to a petitioner on conjectural assumptions after finding that the impugned order was passed without jurisdiction?
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--Mst. Quresha Khatoon, predecessor-in-- interest of the petitioners, was allotted about 251 kanals of agricultural land in the urban area of Kasur on 10-8-1964. The land fell within the border belt. The Border Area Committee cancelled the allotment on the ground that the Deputy Settlement Commissioner who had made the allotment lacked competency in this regard and that the claim of Mst. Quresha Khatoon was transferred to the District after the prescribed date, that is, 24-12-1952. The petitioners preferred a writ petition in the High Court to question the legality of the order of the Border Area Committee. The High Court accepted the petition, the order of cancellation and remanded the case to the order Area Committee on the ground that before cancelling the allotment the Committee had not given an opportunity to the petitioners of being heard. After the remand the petitioners did not seriously contest the proceedings and as a result the Border Area Committee once again cancelled the allotment. Upon this the petitioners filed the present writ petition to challenge the order of the Committee.
2. The case of the petitioners before the High Court was that as the land in dispute fall within the urban area of Kasur the Border Area Committee had no jurisdiction to cancel their allotment. The High Court found merit in this contention but dismissed the writ petition on the ground that the claim of Mst. Quresha Khatoon did not appear to be genuine and that it was most unusual that a claimant should be given such a large allotment in an urban area.
3. In support of this petition it is contended that after the High Court had found that the Border Area Committee had no jurisdiction to cancel the allotment, it should have quashed the order of cancellation and that it erred in declining to give relief to the petitioner merely on conjectural assumptions that the claim of Mst. Quresha Khatoon did not appear to be genuine or that it was unusual that a claimant should be allotted land more than a few acres.
4. The contention raised on behalf of the petitioners needs examination. Leave to appeal is granted.
Security for costs in the sum of Rs.2,000. 'The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with permission to the parties to file additional documents, if any.