 |
| Border area land buying. |
سرحدی علاقے کی زمین کی خریداری صرف NOC نہ ہونے کی بنیاد پر منسوخ نہیں کی جا سکتی، خریدار کے کردار اور سیکیورٹی خدشات کا جائزہ لینا لازم ہے
مختصر کہانی
اہم نکات
حوالہ
متعلقہ قانون
Must read judgement.
Border Area Committee
(Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J)
1075
2026 CLC 1075
[Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)]
Before Ahmad Nadeem Arshad, J
ZAFAR MEHMOOD KHALID and another Petitioners
versus
BORDER AREA COMMITTEE and others-Respondents
Writ Petition No. 9579 of 2017. decided on 10th March, 2025.
West Pakistan Border Area Regulation (MLR No. 9 of 1959)-
-S. 10(a) [as amended vide (Punjab Amendment) Ordinance (III 1981))---Border area dispute---Term "undesirable persons"... Determination---Petitioners were buyers of land in question falling within border area, which was sold to them by legal heirs of original allottees---Border Area Committee cancelled the mutations in their names on the plea that the sale was made without NOC--- Validity---Policy behind requiring an NOC for sale or transfer of land in border areas is to prevent individuals who could pose a threat to the security and integrity of border region from acquiring property---Initially land was transferred to General Head Quarters (G.H.Q.)subject to payment of price to be settled later on by G.H.Q.--Then it was decided subsequently, that allottees themselves would pay the price---Until transfer of price, i.e. the consideration was paid, the title did not pass from the seller to the transferee---When the allottee paid transfer price which was accepted by seller Lt. the Provincial Government and the latter executed registered deed for transfer of proprietary rights and mutation sanctioned on the strength of registered deed, the allottee had acquired title from the owner and nobody else could object thereto except for the owner, that was the Provincial Government---Nobody else, including the Border Area Committee, had jurisdiction or authority to intermeddle in the rights of petitioners---High Court set aside order of Border Area Committee as the same was not sustainable in the eyes of law and was ultra vires, coram non judice and void---High Court remanded the matter to Border Area Committee for decision afresh---Inquiry to ascertain whether petitioners fell within the category of and should take into account petitioners' character, activities, and Sundesirable persons" and the inquiry should be based on evidence any security-related concerns that could arise from their acquisition
1076
CIVIL LAW CASES
[Vol. XLV
of land in the border area-High Court further directed that if Border Area Committee would determine that petitioners "undesirable persons", then cancellation of allotment was justified, and the petitioners were not allowed to hold property in the border area---High Court also directed that if petitioners were found to be of good character and posed no threat to national security or public order, cancellation of allotment would be set aside, and Border Arss Committee would issue ex-post facto NOC for transfer of land to petitioners and mutations in their favour would be restored forthwith---Constitutional petition [pp. 1086, 1087, 1088] A, B & C was allowed accordingly.
Ch. Zafar Hussain and 5 others v. Border Area Committee through Chairman and 6 others 2012 MLD 1538; Subedar Sardar Khan through Legal Heirs and others v. Muhammad Idrees through General Attorney and another PLD 2008 SC 591 and Muhammad Sharif and others v. The Border Area Committee, Lahore and others NLR 2002 Civil 250 rel.
Raja Muhammad Sohail Iftikhar for Petitioners.
Muhammad Rafique Malik, Advocate/Legal Advisor of Border Area Committee for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 10th March, 2025.
JUDGMENT
AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD, J.---Through this Constitutional satitioner impugned the order dated