MUHAMMAD HALEEM And Another vs THE MODEL TOWN COOPERATIVE
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a Regular Second Appeal by the High Court in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction. The dispute arose from the acquisition of land by the Respondent Cooperative Society, with the petitioners claiming ownership based on the operation of Settlement Scheme No. 7. The core legal question was whether the civil suit was competent given the acquisition proceedings and whether the disputed land was immune from such acquisition. The Supreme Court declined to grant leave to appeal, holding that even assuming the petitioners' ownership, it was highly doubtful that the civil suit was maintainable or that the land was immune from acquisition. The Court observed that the petitioners' remedy, if any, lay in seeking compensation, potentially in the form of an alternative plot of land as per the Society's rules and applicable law. Consequently, the Court refused to interfere with the concurrent findings of the lower courts, emphasizing that the civil litigation route was not the appropriate forum for challenging the acquisition in these specific circumstances.
- Is a civil suit competent to challenge the acquisition of land by a cooperative society?
- Can a claimant of land acquired by a cooperative society seek compensation in the form of an alternative plot?
- Does the operation of Settlement Scheme No. 7 automatically grant immunity from land acquisition?
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.---Leave to appeal has been sought by the plaintiffs side in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction; against the dismissal by the High Court, of their Regular Second Appeal.
2. The petitioners have lost throughout. The case relates to the acquisition of property by the Respondent Cooperative Society.
3. After hearing the learned counsel, at some length, even if it be be assumed that the petitioners, as argued, were the owners of the land in dispute by virtue of the direct operation of Settlement Scheme No.7, it is doubtful whether in the circumstances of this case the civil suit was competent or that the land could be treated as immune from acquisition. That being so, if at all the petitioners might be entitled to compensation in one or the other form---the learned counsel has stated that in this case the compensation can also be in the form of alternative plot of land in accordance with law and the rules of the Society. In these circumstances and with the foregoing observations we accordingly, do not consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal; the same, therefore, is refused. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.
Cited by 2 cases
- WAJAHAT IQBAL vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director- 2004 YLR 544
- WAJAHAT IQBAL vs LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through its DIRECTOR 2004 PLJ Lahore 291