THAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY vs MAULA BAKHSH through L.Rs, and others
This matter involves two petitions for leave to appeal arising from separate judgments of the Lahore High Court concerning the cancellation of land sales by the Thal Development Authority. In the first instance, the respondent successfully obtained a decree against the Authority regarding the cancellation of a land sale due to alleged contravention of conditions, including non-payment, which was upheld by the High Court in civil revision. In the second instance, the petitioners challenged the departmental cancellation of their land sale, but their writ petition was dismissed by the High Court. The Supreme Court observed that both petitions shared common legal features and that the conflicting outcomes in the High Court required reconciliation. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal in both cases to determine whether the Authority's actions were legally justified. The Court directed that the appeals be prepared on the existing record, allowed for the filing of additional documents, and ordered the continuation of an existing stay order in one of the petitions pending final adjudication.
- Does the Supreme Court grant leave to appeal when two High Court judgments on similar facts reach conflicting conclusions?
- Can the Supreme Court consolidate petitions for leave to appeal that arise from similar circumstances involving the same statutory authority?
ORDER
1. ' MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.--These two petitions for leave to appeal are directed against two separate judgments of the Lahore High Court; but, they arise out of similar circumstances.
2. ' The respondent in C.P.143/1981 and the petitioners in C.P.250/81 were sold land by the Thal Development Authority. The sale in both the cases was subsequently cancelled on account of contravention of the conditions of sale including the non-payment of the sale price.
3. ' Maula Bakhsh, deceased (Respondent in C.P.143/81) filed a suit, obtained a decree against the Thal Development Authority and succeeded upto the High Court where a Civil Revision of the Thal Development Authority was dismissed. It has now sought leave to appeal in that case.
4. ' In the other petition (C.P.250/81) Maqbool Ahmad and Ghulam Muhammad, petitioners lost before the departmental authorities upto the Board of Revenue. They filed a writ petition in the High Court which having been dismissed, leave to appeal has now been sought by them.
5. After hearing the learned Additional Advocate-General for the Authority in C.P.143/81 and the learned counsel for the petitioners in C.P.250/81 at some length, we feel that there are some features common to both the petitions; and the High Court's judgments would have to be reconciled either by accepting the point of view of the Thal Development Authority or of the other side. We accordingly grant leave to appeal in both the petitions.
6. ' Security only in C.P.250/81 for costs is fixed at Rs,2,000.
7. ' Both the appeals shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties to file all necessary additional documents.
8. ' The stay order passed in C.P.250/81 shall continue.
9. ' The effect of deposit made by the petitioners in C.P.250/81 under the direction of the High Court, shall be examined at the time of final hearing of the appeals.