Contingent Contract and Limitation on Attorney’s Authority

Contingent Contract and Limitation on Attorney's Authority Attorney Board of Revenue Case Laws Constitutional Law Knowledge - Constitutional Law Lahore High Court Litigation & Arbitration Solutions - Constitutional Law Mr. Justice Shujaat Ali Khan in his judgment has decided the issue regarding contingent contract and limitation on attorney’s authority to draw personal benefits in Writ Petition No. 23989 of 2014.

1. Through this petition, under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioner has assailed order, dated 30.06.2014, passed by the Member (Judicial-III), Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore (respondent No.1).

2. Briefly put the facts, as spelt out in this petition, are that Hashmat Ullah son of Qadir Nawaz (predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondents No.7 to 9) executed general power of attorney, in favour of his real brother namely Habib Ullah son of Qadir Nawaz (predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 6), on 24.04.1971, in respect of two chunks of land allotted to him in Chak No.165/WB and 170WB Mailsi, District Vehari under Gujranwala Oustee Scheme, on the basis whereof the latter entered into an agreement to sell with respondents No.3 to 6 on 13.09.1974. Respondents No.3 to 6, on the basis of said agreement to sell, filed a suit for permanent injunction which was decreed vide judgment & decree, dated 20.07.1976 on the statement made by predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondents No.7 to 9. Subsequently, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondents No.7 to 9 got cancelled the said general power of attorney on 01.09.1976.

On the basis of judgment & decree, dated 20.07.1976, respondents No.3 to 6 filed an application before the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan for transfer of tenancy rights under section 19 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, who accepted the same vide order dated 02.04.1979 which was challenged by the petitioner before the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, by filing revision petition which was allowed through order dated 16.09.1980. Later on respondents No.7 to 9 filed Review Petition No.56/1982 against aforesaid order, dated 16.09.1980, which was dismissed through order dated 24.08.1982. Thereafter, respondents No.7 to 9 filed an appeal (R.O.A. No.69/1982) before the Member (Colonies) Board of Revenue, Punjab, against order dated 02.04.1979 passed by the Commissioner, Multan Division, Multan which was dismissed through order dated 23.11.1982. On 29.11.1976, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondents No.7 to 9 filed a declaratory suit challenging agreement to sell and judgment & decree, dated 20.07.1976 on the ground that the same were result of collusiveness which was decreed, through judgment & decree, dated 29.10.1985 against which respondents No.3 to 6 filed an appeal which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, vide judgment & decree, dated 17.11.1986. Besides that on 02.11.1980 respondents No.3 to 6 also filed a declaratory suit seeking setting aside of order dated 16.09.1980 passed by the Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab, which was subsequently dismissed as withdrawn, vide order dated 01.07.1985. On revenue side, respondents No.3 to 6 filed an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Vehari, on 10.03.1996 seeking permission to deposit the sale price who accepted the same vide order dated 28.08.1996. Additionally, respondent No.8, on 05.10.2009, filed an application before the District Officer (Revenue) Vehari for execution of sale deed whereas the petitioner filed an application for implementation of order dated 16.09.1980 passed by the Member Board of Revenue Punjab, Lahore. Both these applications were dismissed by the District Officer (Revenue) Vehari through orders dated 08.03.2011 against which the petitioner filed an appeal before the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Vehari who allowed the same vide order dated 25.10.2012 against which respondents No.3 to 6 filed ROR No.2749/2012 before respondent No.1 who accepted the same vide order dated 30.06.2014; hence this petition.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that if for the sake of arguments, it is admitted that the suit filed by respondents No.3 to 6 was decreed on the statement of predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner and respondents No.7 to 9, even then that decree could not be executed till the grant of proprietary rights in favour of the petitioner and others legal heirs of Hashmat Ali; that while conceding the claim of respondents No.3 to 6 the original allottee covenanted that he would not alienate the land in favour of anybody else except respondents No.3 to 6; that as the land has not been alienated by the original allottee and after his death by his legal heirs in favour of anybody else, respondents No.3 to 6 have no cause of action to move different fora; that in presence of clear cut order dated 16.09.1990 passed by the Member, Board of Revenue, against which respondent No.3 also filed a declaratory suit which he withdrew subsequently, the orders passed by respondent No.1 cannot sustain; that respondent No.1, while passing the impugned order has misconstrued the decree passed by the learned Civil Judge in the suit filed by respondents No.3 to 6 in the year 1976 and considered it as that for specific performance; that as on the basis of agreement to sell predecessor-in-interest of respondents No.3 to 6 covenanted to transfer the land in favour of his own blood relations the transaction has no sanctity in the eye of law.

Further information regarding contingent contract and limitation on attorney’s authority to draw personal benefits can be solicited from AUJ LAWYERS. Feel free to contact us in case you need any clarification and/or require legal assistance regarding similar matters.