Sh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF and another vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
This petition for leave to appeal arose from the dismissal of a Civil Revision by the High Court concerning the execution of a decree for possession of urban land. The petitioners, having purchased a plot of land at a public auction, initiated a suit for possession of a disputed portion of that land, which they successfully obtained a decree for. During execution proceedings, the Government resisted, arguing the disputed area was part of a bungalow occupied by the Superintending Engineer of the Irrigation Department and had been excluded from the auction. The High Court upheld this objection, leading to the dismissal of the petitioners' Civil Revision. Upon review, the Supreme Court noted that the petitioners retained the vast majority of the auctioned land and that the price for the disputed portion was being refunded. Consequently, the Court held that it was not a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal, as enforcing the decree would improperly require the dispossession of a government-occupied structure. The petition was dismissed accordingly.
- Is a decree for possession of land executable when the disputed portion comprises a government-occupied structure?
- Can a court refuse leave to appeal when the petitioners have already received a refund for the disputed portion of the auctioned land?
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--Leave to appeal has been sought by the petitioners against the dismissal of their Civil Revision by the High Court in a matter arising out of execution of a decree.
2. ' As stated by the learned counsel, the petitioners obtained a plot of urban land for building purposes at a public auction. The land belonged to the Government. Some doubt arose about the area of the, plot sold in auction to the petitioners. They accordingly filed a suit for possession of the disputed portion. It was decreed. They filed an application for execution which was resisted mainly on the ground that the disputed part fell within the area of the bungalow of Superintending Engineer, Irrigation. It belonged to the Government and was occupied by the said officer. The disputed area accordingly, it was pleaded in objection to the execution, stood cancelled from the auctioned land. The objection having been upheld the petitioners' Civil Revision was dismissed.
3. They have now sought leave to appeal.
4. A learned Single Judge in the High Court adequately dealt with all the points which have been raised before us. However, we have examined the case from another aspect. The petitioners, according to the learned counsel, purchased in auction a plot measuring l,400 sq. Yards. The portion in dispute which undoubtedly falls within the bungalow belonging to Irrigation Department of the Government, according to the learned counsel's calculations done during the arguments, is hardly about 250 yards. If the mistake is taken to be taken seriously, the petitioners will have to he given possession of the part of a house of the Superintending Engineer. In the circumstances of this case when the petitioners have more than 1100 sq. Yds. Still with them and the price of the disputed portion has been or is being refunded to them, we do not consider it a fit case for the grant of leave to appeal. This petition accordingly is dismissed.