Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 708 of 1981, decided on 27th April, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, dated 28‑2‑1981, in C . R .157‑D of 1981) .

‑‑‑Art.185(3)‑‑Tube‑well scheme‑‑Cancellation of allotment‑‑Land allotted under Tube‑well Scheme cancelled due to non‑fulfillment of conditions‑ Notices issued by department against petitioner's deceased predecessor- in‑interest‑‑Cancellation order impugned as having been passed behind their back‑Some of petitioners being present before concerned authority when question of cancellation was considered and point not having been pressed before trial Court, order maintained by Supreme Court‑ Leave to appeal refused.

Khakan Baber, Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.

Nemo for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 27th April, 1982.

‑‑ The petitioners seek Leave to Appeal against the judgment of the High Court, dated 28‑2‑1981, dismissing their Civil Revision.

2. The facts briefly are that the petitioners/predecessors‑in‑interest had been allotted some land by the respondent (That Development Authority) under the Tube‑well Scheme, on 12‑3‑1955, on certain conditions. Since they did not fulfill some of the conditions a notice was issued to the original allottees and the land was then cancelled. The facts thereupon, filed a civil suit against the said cancellation. The suit, however, was dismissed by the trial Court on 12‑12‑1979. The learned District Judge, on 22‑12‑1980, also dismissed their appeal. They then filed a Revision Petition before the High Court, which too met the same fate vide the impugned order.

3. The only contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners was that notices were issued by the Department against dead person namely their predecessors‑in‑interest, who could nor naturally be served. As such the order of cancellation, which was passed behind their back was bad in law. It is, however, apparent from observation in paragraph 5 of the judgment of the learned District Judge that some of the petitioners were actually present before the concerned authority, when the question of cancellation of allotment was considered. We also notice that the petitioners did not even press the point and did not get an issue framed on this question by the trial Court in this view of the matter we_ see no force in this petition, which is consequently dismissed.

M. I. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.