PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB vs MAND and 6 others
The respondents obtained an allotment of State agricultural land under the Ejectment of Tenants Scheme, which was cancelled by the Collector on 3-7-1968 on the grounds of misrepresentation and fraud under the proviso to Section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. The respondents challenged the cancellation through a civil suit, which was initially dismissed by the trial court but decreed in their favor by the Additional District Judge. The High Court dismissed the Provincial Government's revision petition, relying partly on the fact that the proviso under which the Collector acted had been omitted with retrospective effect by Ordinance XII of 1978. The Provincial Government sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider whether the 1978 omission of the proviso affected an earlier cancellation order and whether respondents found guilty of fraud could seek equitable relief of declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The Court held that leave to appeal ought to be granted to examine these questions.
- Whether the omission of the proviso to Section 16 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act in 1978 could affect an order of cancellation made years earlier?
- After respondents had been found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, could they be permitted to seek the equitable relief of declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act from a Civil Court?
- Section 16, Colonization of Government Lands Act
- Section 42, Specific Relief Act 1877
- Ordinance XII of 1978
ORDER
' SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.--The respondents obtained allotment of State agricultural land under the Ejectment of Tenants Scheme. By an order, dated 3-7-1968 the Collector cancelled the allotment on the ground that the same had been obtained through misrepresentation and fraud. They filed a civil suit to challenge the order of the Collector. The suit was dismissed by the trial Court whereupon they filed an appeal before the Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal and held the order of the Collector to be illegal; accordingly, he declared that the respondents were entitled to obtain proprietary rights in the land in dispute. The Provincial Government filed a revision petition before the High Court but it was dismissed. It now seeks leave to appeal from this Court.
2. Apparently, while cancelling the allotment of the respondents the Collector had acted under the proviso to Section 16, Colonization of Government Lands Act. By Ordinance XII of 1978 this proviso was omitted with retrospective effect. One of the considerations which weighed with the High Court in dismissing the revision petition was that the Collector's order of cancellation could not be based on the said proviso. The Provincial Government seeks leave to appeal to, inter alia, call in question the correctness of the view taken by the High Court.
3. Leave to appeal is granted to consider; (a) whether the omission of the proviso in 1978 could affect the order of cancellation which l ad been made years earlier; and (b) after the respondents had been found guilty of fraud and misrepresentation, could they be permitted to seek the equitable relief of declaration under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act from a Civil Court. The appeal may be made ready for hearing on the present record with direction to the parties to file all additional documents, if any.