Mst. DATAN MAI and 5 others vs Mst. SARDARAN BIBI and 5 others
These two petitions arose from a common subject matter wherein the High Court had disposed of a First Appeal from Order (FAO) based on the mutual concurrence of both parties to abide by the statement of a designated individual regarding whether an arbitrator had participated in the proceedings. The High Court, upon the statement being recorded in the affirmative, set aside the Additional District Judge's order and restored the Civil Judge's order. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that an illegality occurred because the suit land belonged to the State and was subject to alienation restrictions under section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act. The Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the Court does not interfere with the enforcement of agreements as distinguished from alienations, and to that extent the statutory bar does not operate. Consequently, the Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal, affirming the impugned orders passed on the basis of a lawful award and party concurrence.
- Does section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912 operate as a bar to the enforcement of agreements concerning State land as distinguished from actual alienations?
- Can a party challenge an order passed by the High Court on the basis of their own express concurrence and agreement?
- Will the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal against an impugned order founded upon a lawful award and mutual consent of the parties?
- Section 19, Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act 1912
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These two petitions relate to the same subject-matter; they arc being disposed together.
2. While disposing of the matter, before it a learned Judge of the High Court observed as follows:-- "During the hearing of this FAO, both the parties concurred to abide by the statement of Syed Muhammad Aiim Shah Bokhari, Member District Council, as to whether or not Hafiz Mahmood one of the Arbitrators had taken part in the proceedings. In case he stated that he had participated, then the appeal was to be accepted otherwise it was to be dismissed. Syed Muhammad Aim Shah'
Bokhari Member District Council has clearly stated' (statement has been recorded on the order sheet) that Hafiz Mahmood, one of the arbitrators had taken part in the proceedings throughout. In this manner, impugned order of the learned Addl. District Judge is set aside and that of the learned Civil Judge 1-Class Khanpur dated 3-2-1980 is restored. 1 make no order as to costs."
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended, that not with standing the agreement/consent mentioned in the afore-quoted part of the order of the High Court, an illegality has crept into the proceedings. According to him, the suit land being still in the ownership of the State, was not subject to alienation, except in accordance with the approval of the functionaries acting under section 19 of the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act.
4. When told, that this Court has not interfered with the enforcement of agreements as distinguished from alienations, and to that extent section 19 cannot operate as a bar, learned counsel could not press these petitions, any further. In any case, the impugned orders having been passed on the basis of lawful award, as also on concurrence shown by both sides, we do not consider it a fit case for l grant of the leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused.
Cited by 1 case
- SULTAN AHMAD Etc vs MEHR DIN Etc (K.L.R. 1994 Revenue Cases 132)