BoR cannot cancel the assignment after the ownership rights have been acquired through a registered sale deed: LHC - Pakistan

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court (LHC) ruled that the Board of Revenue (BoR) cannot cancel an allotment after acquiring ownership rights through a registered sale deed.

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

The court passed this order in a petition filed by Sarfraz Khan, who has challenged the decisions of the lower courts upholding the decision of a member of the BoR, revoking the deed executed in favor of the petitioner and removing his name from the column of ownership in the income record.

The court ruled that procedural fairness is critical, especially in cases where property rights are disputed after the sale.

The court said that in the event of substantial documented evidence of fraud or a significant breach of the terms of the adjudication, the board must have followed strict procedural steps, including issuing a ‘show cause’ notice and providing an opportunity for response, thereby the principle of natural justice is upheld.

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

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

The court said that once the sale price is deposited and the property is transferred by the collector to the allottees, no other tax authority, even superior to the collector, can intervene to reverse the decision of the collector.

The court further said that if an assignment has been canceled by the appellate court, the civil court has the jurisdiction to set aside the cancellation, especially if it is found to be contrary to the terms and conditions of sale or the provisions of Act V of 1912. .

The court granted the request and noted that the case law on which the law officer relies, because it is clearly distinguishable, is not attractive for the current scenario.

Petitioners Sarfraz Khan and Noor Muhammad were jointly allotted land in 1989 as part of a cultivation plan. The petitioner finally applied for partition of his land and receipt of the remaining lagan, which was granted, and the petitioner’s share in the land to the extent of 28-Kanal 06-Marla was divided into Square No. 30 and entitled to assignment of property rights. of the suit property and finally, mutation No. 1403 was affirmed in favor of the petitioner. The respondent challenged the above mutation, which was rejected. Subsequently, the respondent filed a revision petition resulting in the annulment of the sale deed in favor of the petitioner’s vide order passed by a Member (Judicial).

The petitioner challenged the decision in the lower courts and was unable to obtain compensation.