LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) held that the Board of Revenue (BoR) cannot cancel an allotment after proprietary rights have vested through a registered sale deed.

The court observed that after confirmation of the proprietary rights and registration of the conveyance deed, the allottee would become the absolute owner of the land.

The court passed this order in a petition of Sarfraz Khan who challenged the decisions of the lower courts which upheld the decision of a member BoR cancelling the deed executed in favour of the petitioner and removing his name from the column of ownership in the revenue record.

The court held that procedural fairness is crucial, particularly in cases where proprietary rights are contested post-sale deed.

The court said in case of substantial documented evidence of fraud or a significant violation of allotment conditions, the board must have followed strict procedural steps, including issuing a show cause notice and providing an opportunity for response, thereby upholding the principle of natural justice.

The court said in this case the BoR should review the specific conditions of the original allotment and ensure full compliance with procedural requirements, including issuing detailed notices to involved parties.

If proprietary rights are indeed fully vested, consider legal limitations on the board’s authority and potential challenges based on judicial precedents that protect post-transfer proprietary rights, the court advised.

The court said that once the sale price has been deposited and possession was handed over to the allottees by the collector, no other revenue authorities, even superior to the collector can intervene to reverse the collector’s decision.

The court further said if an allotment has been cancelled by the revenue appellate court, the civil court has the jurisdiction to set aside the cancellation, especially if it is found to be in violation of the terms of sale or the provisions of Act V of 1912.

The court allowed the petition and observed that the case law relied upon by the law officer, being distinguishable, is not attracted to the present scenario.

The petitioners Sarfraz Khan and Noor Muhammad were jointly allotted land in the year 1989 as a part of a cultivation scheme.

The petitioner ultimately moved an application for partition of his land and receipt of remaining lagan, which was allowed, and the petitioner’s share of land measuring 28-Kanal 06-Marla was partitioned in square No.30 and was held entitled for grant of proprietary rights of the suit property and finally, mutation No.1403 was attested in favour of the petitioner.

The respondent challenged the aforesaid mutation which was rejected. Subsequently, the respondent filed a revision petition resulting in the cancellation of the sale deed in favour of the petitioner vide order passed by a member (Judicial).

The petitioner challenged the decision before the low courts and could not get relief.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2024