Pakistan Case LawALLAH YAR and 3 others Versus SHER MUHAMMAD and 2 others
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment dismissing a constitutional petition regarding the ownership of government land. The petitioners claimed that despite the government auction of land being awarded solely to respondent Sher Muhammad, there existed a prior oral agreement for joint ownership and possession. They sought to enforce this arrangement, relying on a 1980 Collector's order that purportedly recognized their co-share status. The core legal question was whether an oral agreement between private parties regarding government land, made prior to an auction, could override the official auction record and bind the government without the sanction of the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that the Collector lacked the authority to alter the auction terms approved by the Board of Revenue. The Court ruled that such private arrangements are not binding on the government unless formally incorporated into the auction bid and approved by the competent authority. Consequently, the Court affirmed that possession and private agreements cannot confer proprietary rights in government land without proper sanction, and leave to appeal was refused.
- Can an oral agreement between private parties regarding government land bind the government if it was not part of the original auction bid?
- Does a Collector have the authority to alter the terms of a government land auction approved by the Board of Revenue?
- Can possession of government land create proprietary rights in the absence of sanction from the competent authority?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioners seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 8-4-1992 whereby a Constitution petition filed by them was dismissed.
2.The factual background of the case is that in the year 1963 Government land in Chak No, 454/J.B., Tehsil and District Jhang was put to auction. The respondent No,1 Sher Muhammad emerged as successful bidder of one of the lots which was approved by the Board of Revenue. The case of the petitioners was that prior to the bidding at that auction they had an oral agreement with Sher Muhammad that though he will be bidding for the lot but it will be obtained jointly by the petitioners as well as Sher Muhammad. According to them Sher Muhammad stood by the arrangement and jointly with them, got possession of the land and started cultivation of it. In 1980 an application was also made by Sher Muhammad to this effect that though his name stood alone in the record showing as the successful bidder in fact his accociates were also part of the bid and should be jointly considered for conferment of proprietary rights. The Collector by an order dated 20-7-1980 approved this arrangement between the petitioners and Sher Muhammad. This was challenged and the Board of Revenue ultimately recognized the right of the respondents as originally recorded and did not give effect to the subsequent requests of including the others.
3.The case of the petitioners appears to be based on many grounds. Primarily, it was a case of joint bidding and omission of the names from the record. The second aspect of the case was that they had been in possession jointly with Sher Muhammad since the date of auction. Thirdly, they also relied on some sort of compromise when the matte was pending in the Civil Court. Finally, the order of the Collector dated 20-7-1980 is interpreted as permission granted by the Collector under section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act for the transfer of part of the ownership in favour of the petitioners.
4.An examination of the order of the Collector dated 20-7-1980 leads to no such inference because neither any application had been made for permission to alienate under section 19 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act nor was such permission granted. On the other hand, the order proceeds on the assumption that the bidding had been made only by Sher Muhammad but there was an arrangement prior to it and from the date of the auction itself. The petitioners were to be treated as -co-sharers. Such an order could not be passed by the Collector in view of the fact that it was the Board of Revenue which had approved the auction in the name of Sher Muhammad alone. The Collector had mentioned in the order that a copy of it be sent to the Commissioner and Board of Revenue but there was nothing to show that necessary approval had been granted by the competent authority.
5.There may have been some sort of arrangement between the petitioners and Sher Muhammad but as between Sher Muhammad and the Government it was not binding unless it had been incorporated or reflected in the auction bid and the approval itself. The possession also will play no part in binding the Government in giving effect to such oral arrangement often made between the parties prior to their approaching the Government in the grant of tenancy or proprietary rights in Government land. Without proper sanction of the competent authority such induction cannot take place as a matter of right.
6.No case is made out for our interference and leave to appeal is refused.
Judges on this bench
- Shafiur Rahman2,457 judgments
- Saad Saood Jan2,559 judgments