1999 SCMR 1633




Per Wajihuddin Ahmed, J.
(a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185

State land—Proprietary rights to lessees—Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court, inter alia, to consider the question as to whether the High Court was justified in holding that the policy letter dated 10-8-1982 issued by the Board of Revenue on 17-10-1982 (No.41-23-82/4226-CB) had not been competently issued and despite direction contained therein the lessees who had not actually cultivating the land under their tenancies, were entitled to receive proprietary rights. [p. 1637] A

(b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185

Appeal to Supreme Court—Res judicata—Principle of—Application— Unilateral retraction of one of the parties to circumvent a conclusive adjudication of the issue up to the Supreme Court—Controversy, reagitated, thus, involved re-opening of a past and closed transaction as also contravention of the principles of res judicata. [p. 1638] B

(c) Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 115

Estoppel of tenant and of licensee and person in possession from questioning the title of those whom he claimed title at the inception of tenancy—State land—Sitting tenant—Concept—Affectees of construction of a base (evictees) were settled in other District and were allotted State land on temporary cultivation basis–Grant of proprietary rights in the State land held by such evictees by Provincial Government—Entitlement– Rule is that sub-tenant, an under-tenant or licensee of a tenant was estopped under Art. 115, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 from questioning or by-passing the title (at the inception) of the tenant under whom he claimed—Non-evictee cultivators in possession, if any, would be hit by said rule—Only the evictees of the base, who, on principle, were being provided alternative land, that too none other than those who were already holding temporarily— Concept of “sitting tenants” in the context meant such affectees being in possession of the alternative lands, either physically or constructively— Entitlement, dependent on a person being a base evictee and i possession actual or constructive, could, under no stretch of reasoning, extend to a non-evictee, claiming under such an evictee or an unauthorised occupant.— No such benefit, specific to base affectees, could be passed on to non-affectees either under a policy decision of the Government or any clarification of the same. [p. 1638] D

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: