YAQEENUDDIN AND OTHERS vs ABDUL MAJID AND OTHERS
This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition seeking leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which set aside an order of the Settlement Commissioner correcting the area of a cotton factory in the Provisional Transfer Order issued to the respondent. The core legal question concerns whether the correction of the area in the Provisional Transfer Order constituted an impermissible material alteration or the correction of an obvious error, and whether proprietary rights vested in the petitioners regarding the disputed land under the Land Settlement Act could be affected in ancillary proceedings. The Supreme Court held that there is force in the contention that the insertion of the correct area was not a material alteration and that the vested proprietary rights could not be taken away through such proceedings. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal to examine the matter further, laying down that ancillary proceedings cannot be used to divest parties of absolute proprietary rights legally vested under settlement laws.
- Whether the correction of an area in a Provisional Transfer Order constitutes an impermissible material alteration?
- Can absolute proprietary rights vested under the Land Settlement Act be taken away in ancillary proceedings?
- Does the High Court have the authority to set aside a Settlement Commissioner's order correcting an obvious error in property records?
- Section Land Settlement Act
ORDER
' MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.-Petitioners have filed extract from the Urban Immovable Property Taxation Record which shows that the area comprised in the Madina Cotton Factory purchased by the respondent from the Settlement Department at a public uction is only 41 kanals. However, the High Court has set aside the order of the Settlement Commissioner by which the correct area of the factory was entered in the P. T.
0. Issued to the petitioners as without lawful authority. Reliance was placed on decided cases in which it has been held that only obvious error, in a P. T.
0., can be corrected but no material alteration is permissible.
It is urged that no such material alteration was made in the P. T.
0. Issued to the respondent. He had purchased the Madina Factory and the area comprised is it was only 4 kanals. However, he had encroached upon 60 kanals of agricultural land which stood transferred to the petitioners under the Land Settlement Act and absolute proprietary rights had come to be vested in him since December 1963, which could not be taken away in ancillary proceedings. In the circumstances, the insertion of the correct area of the Factory in the P. T.
0. Was, prima jack not a material alteration as held by the High Court.
' There is force in the contention raised in the petition. We grant leave to appeal. Security Rs, 1000. 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.