Pakistan Case Law
1994 SCMR 1786

ABDUL GHANI vs Mst. FATIMA 131BI and 5 others

⭐ Prefer in Google
Citation1994 SCMR 1786
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.C.R. No, 541 of 1988 Civil Petition No, 402 of 1992
Date1993-04-24
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Lone and Sajjad Ali Shah
Authored byMuhammad Afzal Lone
ResultLeave refused
AI Summary — generated from this judgment; read the full text below and verify before relying on it.

This matter originated from a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Lahore High Court, which had dismissed a revision petition in limine. The dispute concerned a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell land, which had been allotted to the petitioner as an Islamabad Oustee under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The petitioner argued that the agreement was void under Section 19 of the said Act, contending that his status remained that of a tenant even after the conferment of proprietary rights. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell land allotted under the Act is enforceable after the conferment of proprietary rights. The Supreme Court of Pakistan, relying on the precedent set in Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others v. Mst. Jhando Bibi and others (1992 SCMR 1510), rejected the petitioner's arguments. The Court held that the agreement was valid and enforceable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the grant of leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is discretionary and declined to exercise such discretion in favor of the petitioner, thereby dismissing the petition.

Questions settled in this judgment
  • Is an agreement to sell land allotted under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, enforceable after the conferment of proprietary rights?
  • Does the status of an allottee remain that of a tenant after the conferment of proprietary rights under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912?
  • Is the grant of leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 a matter of right or judicial discretion?
Laws & provisions referred
  • Section 19, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912
  • Article 185(3), Constitution of Pakistan 1973
specific performancecolonization of government landsproprietary rightsIslamabad Ousteeleave to appealcontractual agreement

' MUHAMMAD AFZAL LONE, J.---The la \d in dispute was allotted to Abdul Ghani petitioner, as an Islamabad Oustee under the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. He executed an agreement for its sale in favour of Niamat Ali, who died during the pendency of this litigation and was substituted by his legal representatives, the respondents heiein. It is discernible from the agreement that the petitioner was made part payment of the consideration agreed to between the parties under the agreement. The proprietary rights were conferred on him on 14-4- 1980. Niamat Ali filed a suit for specific performance of the agreement for sale and after his death, as stated earlier, he was replaced by the respondents. The trial Court decreed the suit vide judgment dated 21-7-1987, with which the learned First Appellate Court did not differ and dismissed the petitioner's appeal on 21-4-1988. The revision petition filed by the petitioner in the High Court met the same fate. It was dismissed in limine by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court by order dated 19-9-1992. This dismissal is under challenge before us, and leave to appeal is sought from the order dated 19-9-1992.

2. It is argued that the agreement was hit by section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, and thus the suit for specific performance did not lie.

3. The execution of the agreement and the conferment of proprietary rights on the petitioner are not denied. It is contended that even after conferment of proprietary rights his status remained that of a tenant. The latest judgment of this Court covering the law on the subject is in the case of Mst. Rehmat Bibi and others v. Mst. Jhando Bibi and others (1992 SCM R 1510), with which the learned Counsel has been confronted. He vainly endeavoured to distinguish it, but we are not persuaded by his submissions. Even otherwise, grant of leave under Article 185(3) of the Constitution is discretionary. In the circumstances of the case we do not feel inclined to exercise this discretion in his favour.

' This petition is, therefore, dismissed and the leave prayed for refused.

Cited by 3 cases

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.