ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN And Others vs SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (LAND)
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court concerning the cancellation of land allotments. Respondents Nos.2 and 3 obtained allotments against verified claims and sold a portion of land to the petitioners. Subsequently, discovering excess allotment, respondents Nos.2 and 3 suggested cancelling the allotment in village Preme Kot, which affected the petitioners. The petitioners challenged the cancellation via a writ petition in the High Court but later abandoned their primary contention, instead seeking permission to purchase the land. The High Court disposed of the petition, allowing the petitioners to apply to the relevant authorities for purchase under Section 3 of Act XIV of 1975. The core legal question was whether the High Court erred in disposing of the writ petition based on the petitioners' own offer to purchase the land. The Supreme Court held that since the High Court's order was based on the position adopted by the petitioners themselves, it was not a fit case for interference. The petition for leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.
- Whether the Supreme Court will interfere with a High Court order based on a position adopted by the petitioners themselves?
- Can a bona fide purchaser for value seek to purchase land under Section 3 of Act XIV of 1975 when an original allotment is cancelled due to excess allotment?
- Section 3, Act XIV of 1975
ORDER
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.---Respondents Nos.2 and 3 obtained allotment of land against their verified claims in a number of villages. Subsequently, they sold about 89 Kanals of land from their allotment in Preme Kot of Tehsil Hafizabad to the petitioners. It was later found that respondents Nos.2 and 3 had obtained excess allotment to the extent of 217 units. On their own suggestion the allotment received by them in village Preme Kot was cancelled. The petitioners who were affected by the cancellation filed a writ petition in the High Court. Their case was that the allotment received by respondents Nos.2 and 3 in village Preme Kot was prior in time to the allotments obtained by them elsewhere therefore, the allotment in the said village should not have been cancelled.
However, during the course of arguments before the High Court they did not press this point further but stated that they may be permitted to purchase the land obtained by them from respondents Nos.2 and 3. On the basis of this offer, the High Court made the following order: "In view of the above, the petitioners who claim to be purchasers for value for the last 20 years, may better apply to the relevant authorities for action under section 3 of Act XIV of 1975. If they satisfy the conditions therein, they shall be sold the land in accordance with law. The petition is accordingly disposed of."
The petitioners seek leave to appeal from the above order.
2. It is clear that the order of the High Court is based upon the position adopted by the petitioners themselves. This is therefore not a fit case for interference by this Court. Leave is refused.