Law: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (1912)

Section: 10

Law: Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967

Section: 164,11

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 4

Law: Code Of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Section: 115

Summary

The revision application challenges the appellate court's decision that set aside the trial court's decree favoring the applicant's grant of 6.18 acres of land in Deh Jhangal Malik. The applicant was granted land by the Colonization Officer after fulfilling all conditions, including full payment and possession. The grant was cancelled by the Executive District Officer Revenue (Respondent No. 2) on grounds that the land was within 20 chains of a village site, violating the Land Grant Policy, 1989. The cancellation order was passed without hearing the applicant, violating principles of natural justice. The trial court upheld the grant holding the cancellation order illegal due to lack of jurisdiction and procedural flaws. The appellate court overturned this, citing non-exhaustion of statutory remedies and illegality of the grant. The High Court in revision found that the cancellation was unlawful as the grant had matured into ownership post-issuance of the T.O. Form and record entries. The impugned order violated Section 164 of the Sindh Land Revenue Act, 1967 as no opportunity of hearing was provided. Section 11 of the Sindh Land Revenue Jurisdiction Act, 1876 did not bar the suit as there was no alternative remedy for the applicant. The revision was allowed, appellate judgment set aside, and trial court decree maintained.

Core Points

• Applicant legally granted 6.18 acres after fulfilling eligibility and payment conditions.
• Grant was cancelled by Executive District Officer citing proximity to village site under 20 chains (Land Grant Policy 1989).
• Cancellation order passed without notice or hearing to applicant — violation of principles of natural justice (audi alteram partem).
• Trial court held cancellation void; appellate court reversed citing lack of exhaustion of statutory remedies and illegality of grant.
• High Court held cancellation unlawful: grant had matured into ownership (T.O. form issued, record updated).
• Section 164 SLRA requires opportunity of hearing before cancellation; impugned order violated this provision.
• Section 11 SLRA Jurisdiction Act bar to suit not applicable as the order was passed suo moto under revision jurisdiction, with no appeal remedy.
• High Court sets aside appellate judgment, restores trial court decree.

Laws and Sections Table

JUDGMENT