Pakistan Case LawCh. MUHAMMAD SHARIF Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector, Gujrat
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the High Court, which had maintained the refusal of an interim injunction in a civil suit. The petitioner, who had previously leased canal land for temporary cultivation, participated in a new auction for the lease after his previous term expired. Although the petitioner deposited 10% of the bid money and received a recommendation from the Sub-Divisional Officer, the bid remained pending approval by the Executive Engineer. The petitioner sought an injunction to prevent the authorities from proceeding further after the bid approval was refused and a re-auction was ordered. The trial court initially granted the injunction, but the appellate court and subsequently the High Court refused it, reasoning that the auction had not received final approval from the competent authority. The Supreme Court held that since the competent authority had not approved the auction, it remained within their competence to order a re-auction. Consequently, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the High Court's order and refused leave to appeal.
- Can a court grant an interim injunction against the re-auction of canal land where the initial bid has not received final approval from the competent authority?
- Does an auction bidder acquire a vested right to a lease before the competent authority grants final approval?
- Is the decision to order a re-auction of canal land within the competence of the relevant authority when the initial bid remains unapproved?
ORDER
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---The petitioner, a plaintiff seeks leave to appeal against the order of the High Court dated 11-10-1992 whereby the refusal of the interim order was maintained by the High Court in civil revision.
2.The petitioner filed a civil suit on the ground that he had been annually obtaining on lease the canal land for the purposes of temporary cultivation. When the annual lease expired on 31-3-1992 the petitioner bid for the lot, deposited 10% of the bid money and his bid was recommended by the SDO which was awaiting approval of the Executive Engineer. He challenged the refusal of the competent authority to approve the bid. At the same time, he applied for an interim relief which was granted by the trial Court but on appeal the injunction was refused on the ground that a re- auction had been ordered and the auction had not received final approval of the competent authority. For the same reason the High Court has affirmed that order.
3.It is admitted that the authority competent to approve the auction has not so far approved it. A re-auction of the lease was within the competence of the authority.
4.No case is made out for leave to appeal which is hereby 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.
Judges on this bench
- Shafiur Rahman2,457 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments
- Manzoor Hussain Sial807 judgments