RIAZ HUSSAIN And Another vs DISTRICT COUNCIL, MUZAFFARGARH Through Chairman And Another
These are two petitions for special leave to appeal arising out of identical facts concerning a dispute over property that forms part of a Waqf created by Sardar Kaura Khan. The property was taken over by the Auqaf Department by notification in 1973 and subsequently leased out to the petitioners in 1981 for two years. Upon a later notification releasing the property, the petitioners filed suits challenging the release and seeking temporary injunctions. The trial court dismissed the interim relief applications, and the additional district judge not only dismissed the appeals but also rejected the plaints. Civil revisions before the High Court were similarly unsuccessful, leading to the present petitions. The core legal question involved the competence of the lower appellate court to reject the plaints and the entitlement of the petitioners to interim relief. The Supreme Court held that the petitions are not fit for the grant of leave because the leases granted to the petitioners have since expired, leaving them without any locus standi in the matter. The key principle laid down is that the expiration of a lease extinguishes the lessee's locus standi to challenge subsequent dealings or releases of the property.
- Does a lessee retain locus standi to challenge property proceedings after the expiration of their lease?
- Is leave to appeal to the Supreme Court warranted when the underlying lease of the petitioners has expired?
SHAD SAOOD JAN, J.--These are two petitions for special leave to appeal arising out of identical facts.
2. The property in dispute in these two petitions is part of the Waqf created by one Sardar Kaura Khan. It was taken over by the Auqaf Department by a notification issued on 17-12-1973. In 1981 the Auqaf Department leased out the property to the petitioners for a period of two years.
Subsequently, by another notification the said department released the property. The petitioners filed separate suits challenging the notification of the department whereby the properties were released They also sought temporary injunctions for the protection of their possession pendente lite. The trial Court dismissed their applications for interim relief. They preferred appeals before the learned Additional District Judge against the refusal of the trial Court to grant them interim relief.
The learned Additional District Judge not only dismissed their appeals but also rejected their plaints. The petitioners then filed civil revisions in the High Court but without any success. They now seek leave to appeal from this Court.
3. It is not necessary for us to examine the proposition whether the learned Additional District Judge was competent to reject their plaints for we find that the leases granted to them have since expired leaving them without any locus standi in the matter. These are, therefore, not fit cases where leave should be granted to the petitioners.