Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 1167 of 1985, decided on 10th December, 1985.

‑ S. 30(2)‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Acquisition of land by auction deconfirmed ‑Deconfimration order remaining unchallenged and auction purchaser withdrawing amount deposited Effect‑In view of non‑challenging deconfirmation order and with drawal of deposited amount, auction purchaser, held, would have no vested right to acquire deconfirmed property‑Revocation of conveyance deed could not be assailed in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court in circumstances.

M. Z. Khan Barki‑for Petitioner.

The petitioner by filing this writ petition has assailed the validity of the order, dated 12‑9‑1985, pronounced by Mr. S. M. Nasim, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, who had revoked the conveyance deed executed in favour of Nazir Ahmad son of Ghulam Muhammad the petitioner regarding the land i6 dispute.

2. The facts of this case in substance are that lot No. 7, measuring 100 Kanals, located in Chak No. 11/W. B. alongwith the lots of Chak No. 9/W. B. and 43/W. B. were sold in open auction by the District Authorities, Multan on 2‑i‑1963. The Board of Revenue confirmed the auction in favour of the petitioner on 1‑7‑1963, subsequently, on 8‑11‑1963 the Deputy Commissioner, Multan moved the Board of Revenue for the deconfirmation of the lots granted to different persons includin the peti tioner on the following grounds :‑

(a) that the said area was located in Co‑operative Farming Chaks, which was within a radius of five miles from the municipal limits, Vehari and it was required for the extension and development of the Town ,

(b) that there was a proposal for the formation of Vehari as a District Headquarter ;

(c) that the area was sold in contravention of the order of Board of Revenue embodied in its telegram, dated 14‑12‑1962. whereby the Deputy Commissioner, Multan was asked to ensure that State lands in Co‑operative Farming Chaks should be excluded from being auctioned.

3. The land acquired by auction by the petitioner was deconfirmed and a he did not seek any remedy against the said deconfimarion of the said auction. He did not deposit the remaining amount on account of his ailment. On 28‑4‑1981, the Deputy Commissioner/Collector, District Vehari allowed him to deposit the remaining dues with penal interest. A conveyance deed was executed and registered in favour of Nazis Abroad the petitioner on 2‑9‑1981. Subsequently, it was brought to the notice of the authorities that the order of deconfirmation of this plot was never challenged in any Court arid tile Deputy Commissioner directed the Tahsildar, Vehari on 20‑9‑1981 not to implement the conveyance deed till the finalization of the inquiry. Simultaneously, the Collector, District Vehari requested the Board of Revenue to cancel the conveyance deed under section 30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 as it was got registered by fraud.

4. Notice was issued to the petitioner as to why his conveyance deed's should not be revoked in a suo motu revision petition. The Board of Revenue revoked the conveyance deed by means of the impugned order, dated 12‑9‑1985.

4. The area given to the petitioner was located in the Co‑operative Farming Chaks within a radius of five miles from the municipal limits of Vehari Town. It was given to understand, by the petitioner that one Nazir Ahmad had filed a writ petition, which was successful. That writ was filed by Nazir Ahmad son of Muhammad Bakhsh and not by the petitioner. Subsequently, it was found that he got refunded the amount of auction deposited by him in the Sub‑Treasury. An inquiry was trade and it was found that a sum of Rs. 10,459 was refunded under a refund voucher issued to Nazir Ahmad through one Muhammad Hussain. The petitioner denied this fact. He has, however, conceded that possession of this land was given to Falak Sher and Falak Sher thereafter had acquired this property on lease.

5. The order of deconfirmtion was not at all challenged and the impugned order shows that the money deposited by the petitioner was refunded. The petitioner could have challenged the deconfirmation order but ire did not bother to assail the same. The petitioner had no vested right to acquire the property in dispute, which he could not obtain it accordance with the instructions of Board of Revenue, Lahore, The re nation of the conveyance deed is, therefore, not open to any exception.

I see no merit in this writ petition and dismiss the same in limine.

A. A. 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.