AKHTAR AL1 and others vs MUHAMMAD HANIF and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal filed by the defendant petitioners against the dismissal of their civil revision by the High Court, which upheld the concurrent findings of lower courts decreeing the respondents' suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land. The core legal question concerned whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell State land could be decreed in the absence of sanction from the competent authority under section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act. The Supreme Court held that the statutory limitation under section 19 pertains to actual alienation and not to an agreement to alienate, and consequently, a decree for specific performance of the contract suffers from no legal infirmity. The key principle laid down is that an agreement to alienate State land and a subsequent decree for specific performance do not violate the bar on alienation contained in section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act 1912.
- Does section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act prohibit an agreement to alienate State land?
- Can a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell State land be decreed without sanction from the competent authority?
- Does a decree for specific performance of a contract regarding State land suffer from infirmity due to lack of prior sanction for alienation?
- Section 19, Colonization of the Government Lands Act 1912
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--The petitioners, a defendant side in a suit for specific performance, have sought leave to appeal against the dismissal by the High Court of their Civil Revision. The petitioners' predecessorin-interest had agreed to sell the suit land to the respondents side.
2. Originally, it was State land and the allotment to the petitioner side was subject to section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act, viz-a-viz the limitation on the alienation.
3. Disputes having arisen the respondents' suit for specific performance, now stands decreed. On facts there are concurrent findings in favour of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioners however, relied upon section 19 to argue that the suit could not be decreed in absence of the sanction by the competent authority. When pointed out that the limitation is regarding alienation and not regarding an agreement to alienate and the decree being for the specific performance of the contract would not suffer from any infirmity in this behalf, learned counsel could not advance his argument any further. The impugned judgment does not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal is, therefore, refused.
Cited by 7 cases
- GHULAM MURTAZA Through L.Rs. vs FALAK SHER 2006 CLC 1253
- MUHAMMAD ASLAM and 4 others vs GHULAM RASOOL and 6 others 2002 MLD 1860
- Chaudhary MUHAMMAD SHARIF through Legal Heirs and 13 others vs HASSAN DIN and 12 others 1999 YLR 1163
- AKBAR ALI and others vs LAL and others 1997 PLD Lahore 709
- SULTAN AHMAD Etc vs MEHR DIN Etc (K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 132)
- Mst. REHMAT BIBI and others vs Mst. JHANDO BIBI and others 1992 SCMR 1510
- (Retd.) GROUP CAPT. A.M. MORAD vs MUHAMMAD AZMATULLAH SIDDIQUI And 3 Other 1991 SCMR 2415