Case Details

Citation(s)
2015 SLG 94 2015 SLD 94 2015 PLD 166
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 632-L and 633-L of 2012, decided on 22ndJanuary, 2015. DATE of hearing 9th October, 2014.
JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, IQBAL HAMEED-UR-REHMAN AND UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JJ
Mehmood A. Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. A.G. Tariq Chaudhry, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondents

MEMBER BOARD OF REVENUECHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LahorevsABDUL MAJEED and anotherMEMBER BOARD OF REVENUECHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LahorevsMUHAMMAD TUFAIL and another

Law: Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975

Section: 2,3

(a) Auction--- ----Auction purchaser, rights of--- Scope--- Rights conferred onto an auction purchaser after the confirmation of the auction sale were of a contractual nature. Muhammad Attique v. Jami Limited PLD 2010 SC 993 and Government of Puniab v. Abdul Ghafoor 2009 SCMR 1055 ref. (b) Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act (XIV of 1975)-- ----Ss. 2 & 3---Available Properties Scheme for Management and Disposal of Available Urban Properties, 1977, para. 11---Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958) [repealed], S.10---Notified Officer---Powers and duties---Evacuee property, auction of---Successful bidder---Defects in auctioned property preventing its transfer to the successful bidder---Allotment of alternate land to successful bidder by notified officer as compensation---Legality---Question as to whether notified officer was under a legal obligation to allot alternate land as compensation to the successful bidder in a confirmed auction sale of available (evacuee) property in a case where defects pertaining to the auctioned property prevented its transfer to the said bidder---Respondents were the successful bidders in an auction held for the evacuee plots in question---Respondents paid all the dues, whereafter they were issued a verification certificate and transfer deed---Respondents did not take immediate possession of the plots nor did they approach the revenue authorities for recording mutation of their transfer deed---Meanwhile plots in question became subject matter of litigation as a result of which they were mutated in favour of a third party---When respondents became aware of such mutations in favour of third party they instead of assailing the same and defending their own title to the plots, applied to the Board of Revenue for grant of alternate evacuee land---Board of Revenue declined respondents' application to allot them alternate evacuee land---Respondents filed a constitutional petition before the High Court which was allowed by holding that revenue authorities were under a duty to properly compensate the respondents by transferring to them alternate available evacuee plots of equal value in…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register