 |
| Registered sale deed cancelled by Board of revenue. |
بورڈ آف ریونیو ملکیتی دستاویز منسوخ نہیں کر سکتا — اہم فیصلہ
⚖️ 2026 CLC 919 (Lahore)
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ جب سرکاری زمین کے الاٹی نے مکمل قیمت، سود اور جرمانہ ادا کر دیا ہو اور اس کے حق میں ملکیتی دستاویز جاری ہو چکی ہو تو بورڈ آف ریونیو اسے محض نظرِثانی کے ذریعے منسوخ نہیں کر سکتا۔
📌 مختصر کہانی
ایک شخص کو سرکاری زمین اینٹوں کے بھٹے کے لیے دی گئی۔ بعد میں اس نے زمین کی مکمل قیمت، سود اور جرمانہ ادا کیا، جس کے بعد اس کے حق میں ملکیتی دستاویز جاری کر دی گئی۔
تقریباً چھ ماہ بعد ضلعی افسر نے اس معاملے پر نظرِثانی کی درخواست کی، جس کے نتیجے میں بورڈ آف ریونیو نے ملکیتی دستاویز منسوخ کر دی اور ادا شدہ رقم بھی ضبط کر لی۔
متاثرہ شخص نے اعلانِ حق کا دعویٰ دائر کیا۔
⚖️ ہائی کورٹ نے قرار دیا کہ
🔹 نظرِثانی مقررہ 90 دن کے اندر دائر ہونی چاہیے تھی، جبکہ یہاں تقریباً چھ ماہ بعد کارروائی کی گئی۔
🔹 مقررہ مدت گزرنے کے بعد نظرِثانی پر دیا گیا حکم اختیارِ سماعت کے بغیر تھا۔
🔹 مکمل قیمت ادا کرکے ملکیتی دستاویز حاصل کرنے کے بعد الاٹی محض کرایہ دار نہیں رہا بلکہ اسے ملکیتی حقوق حاصل ہوگئے۔
🔹 صرف یہ الزام کہ اینٹوں کا بھٹا کام نہیں کر رہا تھا، دھوکا دہی یا غلط بیانی ثابت نہیں کرتا۔
🔹 دھوکا دہی یا غلط بیانی ثابت نہ ہونے کی صورت میں متعلقہ قانون کے تحت ملکیتی دستاویز منسوخ کرنے کی شرائط پوری نہیں ہوئیں۔
🔹 اگر حکومت کو ملکیتی دستاویز پر اعتراض تھا تو اسے دیوانی عدالت سے رجوع کرنا چاہیے تھا؛ محکمہ خود فریق بن کر فیصلہ نہیں کر سکتا۔
🏛️ نتیجہ
ہائی کورٹ نے بورڈ آف ریونیو کا ملکیتی دستاویز منسوخ کرنے کا حکم غیر قانونی اور اختیارِ سماعت کے بغیر قرار دیا اور حکومت کی درخواست مسترد کر دی۔
مقدمہ: صوبہ پنجاب وغیرہ بنام چوہدری عبد الحمید
2026 CLC 919 (Lahore)
— فیصلہ 29 نومبر 2024
Must read judgment.
2026 CLC 919
[Lahore]
Before Rasaal Hasan Syed, J
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Secretary Colonies, Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore and 2 others ---Petitioners Versus
Ch. ABDUL HAMEED ---Respondent
Civil Revision No. 55609 of 2021, decided on 29th November, 2024.
(a) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---
---Ss.24(b) & 30(2)---Punjab Board of Revenue Act (XI of 1957), S.8(2)-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Resumption of proprietary rights---Cancellation of allotment/conveyance deed by Board of Revenue--Jurisdiction--Scope-Review of orders by Board of Revenue---Limitation---Suit for declaration was filed by the allottee against cancellation of conveyance deed---The respondent was initially leased 21 kanals of government land through public auction for brick kiln purposes-In 1990, the land was approved for sale to him by the Board of Revenue-Upon full payment the conveyance deed was executed, however, six months later, the newly posted district collector sought review under 5.30(2) of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 (the Act 1912), resulting in the Board of Revenue canceling the said conveyance deed and confiscating the paid amount---As a result the respondent instated civil suit, whereby, the Trial Court held the confiscation of paid amount illegal but upheld the deed's cancellation---On appeal, the District Court declared both the confiscation and the deed's cancellation unlawful, holding the same being without jurisdiction, the review was time-barred, and no fraud or misrepresentation existed in the matter-The foundational questions in the present case were as to "whether the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab could review the order by which the execution of Conveyance Deed was approved; whether the reference for review was within time; whether the pre-conditions of 5.30(2) of the above Act 1912 existed in this case; and whether after the execution of conveyance deed, the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab had any jurisdiction to cancel the conveyance deed in the absence of pre-requisites of 5.30(2) of the Act 1912?"-Held: It was manifest from the facts that the order under challenge was passed on 10.3.2016 while the review was sought on 03.9.2016-It was after six months from the date of order that the jurisdiction to review was invoked under S.8(2) of the Board of Revenue Act, 1957 and application for review of order could only be made within 90 days of of the order---In the present case the review was solicited after six months approximately---Reference was time-barred which could not be entertained on this score which aspect was ignored although it was the primary duty of the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab to attend to the question of limitation first; even if it was not raised---The order passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab on a time barred reference was without jurisdiction and was liable to be annulled-Moreover, admittedly the payment of full price plus interest and penal interest had been confirmed and that the conveyance deed was ordered to be executed in favour of the respondent on receiving full consideration---It was thus a case case in which ch respondent respond had full proprietary rights in the property and was no longer a tenant--The respondent did deposit the amount of sale price as determined, the interest and penal interest; whereupon the conveyance deed was executed with the condition that it should not be used for any other purpose except for the purpose of brick kiln-It was not the objection that this condition was not violated by using the property for different purposes rather the allegation was that the brick kiln was not functioning-This being so there was no question of fraud or misrepresentation or concealment of facts on the part of respo of respondent and therefore, the pre-requisites of 5.30(2) of the Act, 1912 were not attracted---The department in these circumstances, if intended, could challenge the llenge the conveyance deed, by filing a civil suit instead of being a judge of their own cause-The order passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab was illegal and without jurisdiction---Civil revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
(b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---
----Ss.24(b) & 30(2)---Resumption of proprietary rights by Board of Revenue--Scope---Once -Once the collector has confirmed the proprietary rights in favour of the original allottee through a registered sale deed the Provincial Government has no right to claim ownership and if any fraud is detected it can only be challenged through a civil suit.
Province of the Punjab through District Officer, Toba Tek Singh and others v. Nazir Ahmad and 9 others 2008 SCMR 749 rel. Province of Punjab and others v. Mst. Nabeela Taj and others 2013 YLR 2286 and Muhammad Asghar v. Member Board of Revenue and others 2009 MLD 1023 ref.
Waheed Alam, Assistant Advocate General with Fateh Muhammad, Naib Tehsildar, Chak No. 47, Tehsil Sargodha for Petitioners.
Naweed Shahryar for Respondent.