Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan
Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore and others v. Rasheeda Bibi (deceased), widow of Ghulam Sarwar (deceased), through legal heirs and others
Published on this website
C.P.L.A. No. 104-L of 2017
Citation: Approved for reporting; reporter citation not stated in the judgment
Background
Background
In Rasheeda Bibi, the FCC held that a temporary lease and payment cannot override a ban on granting state land, and explained revenue review under section 163.
The dispute concerned 49 acres, 5 kanals and 13 marlas in Chak No. 2/KB, Pakpattan. A 2008 EDO order supported a proposed ownership grant under the 1979 policy. The Board permitted its review in 2011; the Lahore High Court set that order aside in 2016. The FCC examined both the land’s eligibility and the distinction between sanctioning and deciding a review.
Legal questions
Legal questions
Can a temporary lease or payment create ownership of prohibited state land, and when may a successor revenue officer review an order?
Court holding
What the Court decided
A temporary cultivation lease and payment of government dues create no vested entitlement to ownership where the land is excluded from grant under the 3 September 1979 policy. A competent successor revenue officer may review a predecessor’s order subject to section 163 and the required prior sanction; sanction is distinct from deciding the review.
Final outcome
Final outcome
Petition converted into appeal and allowed. Lahore High Court judgment dated 28 October 2016 set aside; Board of Revenue order dated 24 August 2011 restored and maintained in principle; EDO order dated 28 October 2008 declared unsustainable; respondents held ineligible for proprietary rights. Parties to bear their own costs.
Practical effect
What the decision means in practice
The ownership claim was finally rejected; no remand was ordered. The 2008 EDO order could not support an entitlement to proprietary rights.
This summary states the immediate effect recorded in the decision. The original judgment and the facts of the particular case remain controlling.
Key legal principles
Key legal principles
- A temporary cultivation lease does not itself confer ownership or a vested right to a permanent grant.
- Payment and administrative acquiescence cannot overcome a substantive prohibition on granting state land.
- Section 163 permits review by a competent successor officer subject to statutory conditions and prior sanction; sanction does not itself decide the review.
- Party-initiated review and suo motu review are distinct for limitation; notice and the applicable statutory safeguards remain necessary.
New judgment alerts
Follow this court or legal topic
Receive new judgments and analysis about Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan, Civil Law, Constitutional Law by email.
Primary source
Original judgment and official source
This HTML summary does not replace the court record. Use the linked original judgment PDF or official court source to verify the exact text and directions.
Later treatment
Later treatment
Pinpoint research
Exact paragraph and citation links
Each numbered entry has a permanent link, a ready-to-copy pinpoint citation, and the corresponding page of the certified judgment. The short descriptions are editorial research aids; verify the Court's exact wording in the PDF.
Judgment of Chief Justice Amin-ud-Din Khan9 paragraphs
Temporary cultivation and permanent ownership are distinct
A grant requires eligibility under the policy; excluded land cannot be alienated by an administrative step.
An established prohibition cannot be ignored
Courts must address an established legal impediment in the official record when protecting state property.
Successor review requires statutory competence and sanction
Section 163 permits review of a predecessor’s order subject to its conditions; sanction enables review without deciding its merits.
Application-based and suo motu review differ
The limitation for a party’s application is not mechanically applied to a statutory own-motion review.
Payment does not confer ownership
A challan, deposit or acceptance of government dues cannot remove the policy prohibition.
The Board permitted review rather than deciding it
The High Court misread the Board’s role in granting permission to the EDO.
No remand was ordered
The Court relied on the specific revenue findings and declined another return to the revenue hierarchy.
The governing principles
The lease creates no vested proprietary right; successor review remains subject to section 163.
Appeal allowed and ownership claim rejected
The High Court judgment was set aside, the Board’s order restored in principle and the 2008 EDO order declared unsustainable.
Research tools
Use this judgment in your research
Copy a link to a specific part
Judgment text is provided for legal research and general information. Verify the official court record before relying on it in proceedings.
Related article
Related article
In Rasheeda Bibi, the FCC held that a temporary lease and payment cannot override a ban on granting state land, and explained revenue review under section 163.
Read the related article →