MUHAMMAD HAYAT vs MUHAMMAD SHAKAR And Another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal directed against the order of the Lahore High Court dismissing the petitioner's Intra-Court Appeal, which had challenged the dismissal of his writ petition concerning land allotment. The core legal question involves the validity of cancelling a claimant allottee's land allotment on the ground of non-possession and whether a person in whose favour an auction was never confirmed possesses locus standi to maintain a writ petition or intra-court appeal. The Supreme Court held that possession is not an essential condition for the confirmation of land allotted to a claimant allottee, and an unconfirmed auction confers no vested right to challenge subsequent administrative orders through constitutional remedies. The petition was accordingly dismissed, upholding the concurrent judgments of the High Court.
- Whether possession is an essential condition for the confirmation of land allotted to a claimant allottee?
- Does an unconfirmed auction give the auction-purchaser a sufficient right to maintain a writ petition or intra-court appeal?
- Whether an allotment of land can be cancelled without affording an opportunity of hearing to the claimant allottee?
ORDER
1. S. USMAN ALI SHAH, J.---Muhammad Hayat petitioner filed this petition for leave to appeal against the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 25-2-1986 whereby his Intra-Court Appeal against the order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, passed in Writ-Petition No.443-R of 1976, was dismissed.
2. Muhammad Shakar respondent No.1 was allotted the land in dispute measuring 67 kanals vide R.L.11 of village Kud Lathi Ara, Tehsil Shahpur District Sargodha on 11-6-1973. This allotment was cancelled by the Deputy Settlement Commissioner on the ground that the claimant was not in possession of the property in dispute. The said property was auctioned in favour of the petitioner but was still to confirm by the Addl. Settlement Commissioner. However, on a memo from the Chief Settlement Commissioner the land in dispute was confirmed in the name of respondent No.1 on 8-3-1975. The auction made in favour of the petitioner which was yet to be confirmed was disapproved. Civil suit of the petitioner against this order was dismissed on 12-5-1975. Thereafter, writ petition and I.C.A.
3. Both of the petitioner were also dismissed, the later one on ' 25-2-1986.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record of the case. We have observed that the allotment in favour of the respondent No.1 was made on 11-6-1973 which was to be confirmed after 15 days but the same was not done accordingly. The allotment in question was cancelled without hearing the claimant allottee on the ground that the claimant was not in possession. We think that the respondent was a claimant allottee and his possession was not an essential condition for confirmation. On the other hand the auction in favour of the petitioner had never been confirmed, therefore, he has rightly been held to have no right to file a writ petition or intra-Court appeal.
5. Under the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the orders passed by the learned High Court in both writ petition and I.C.A. Are unexceptionable and need no interference. By this Court. The petition is, accordingly, dismissed.