Find a Lawyer

Civil Revision No.1465 of 1980, decided on 8th November, 1980.

‑‑‑S.115‑‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.19‑‑Tenancy rights in State land‑‑Transfer of‑‑Lessee of State land being not empowered to transfer his interest to possess such land by private contract, held, would not confer any possessory or proprietary rights upon purchasers of such land‑‑Any such stipulation without consent in writing of Collector being void, would not be acted upon‑ Purchasers of such land, could not as of right urge in suits that possession taken under contract of sale could not be interfered with‑ Courts below were justified in dismissing petitioners /purchasers suits for declaration and for perpetual injunction.

Aslam Riaz for Petitioners.

The land in dispute allotted to the respondent in‑respect of which the petitioners secured an agreement to sell as admittedly State land to which the Colonization of Government 'Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) applied.

2. According to section 19 of the Act nope of the rights or interests vested in a tenant by this Act shall without consent' in writing of the Commissioner or of such officer as he may by written order empower in this behalf, be transferred or charged by any sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or other private contract other than a sublease for more than one year. It further provides that any such transfer or charge made without such consent in writing shall be void, and if the, transferee has obtained possession, he shall be ejected under the order of the Collector.

3. In spite of the fact that the agreement to sell relied upon by the petitioner did not have the effect 'of transferring to them any ownership in the property, and ordinarily it was saved from being hit by the provisions, of section 19' of the Act, even then the respondent' could not by a private contract transfer to the petitioners his interest to possess the land. Any such stipulation without the consent in writing of Collector was thus void and could not be acted upon. The petitioners, therefore, could not as. of right urge in their suit that their possession, taken under, the contract of sale, could not be interfered with. The learned Courts below were justified in dismissing the petitioners' suit for declaration of ownership and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their possession.

There is no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine.

H.B.T. 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.