Unauthorized Use of the Property and Concealment of Material Facts by the Petitioner --- Lahore High Court dismissed petition in limine
Islamabad, 19-11-2024: The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dismissed a Writ Petition filed by Dr. Shahida Mansoor challenging the demand for a premium of PKR 6.79 million for converting her leased property from residential to commercial use under the Cantonnements Land Administration Rules, 1937 (C.L.A. Rules, 1937).
The case, heard by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf, revolved around the petitioner’s contention that the premium should be calculated based on rates prevailing in 1983, when her initial application for conversion was filed, rather than 2011, when she submitted a fresh application.
Dr. Mansoor’s property, Bungalow No. 251/A situated in Rawalpindi Cantonment, was initially leased for residential purposes. The petitioner sought to convert the property for commercial use, citing that her application from 1983 should be considered as the baseline. The respondents, including the Ministry of Defence and Military Estate Office, argued that the petitioner’s earlier applications were rejected and unchallenged, and her case was rightly processed under the prevailing 2007 Policy when she reapplied in 2011.
The petitioner further faced allegations of unauthorized use of the property for commercial purposes prior to obtaining proper approval, a factor that also influenced the Court’s decision.
The Court identified the main issue as whether the petitioner should be charged based on the 1983 rates or the rates prevailing in 2011 under the 2007 Policy. Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf ruled that:
- The petitioner’s earlier applications in 1983 and 1986 were rejected, and her fresh application in 2011 fell under the 2007 Policy.
- Premium and other charges must be calculated based on rates prevailing at the time of final approval, as per administrative instructions issued under the (C.L.A. Rules, 1937).
The Court also noted that the petitioner’s unauthorized use of the property for commercial purposes further weakened her claim for equitable relief.
Legal Principles Highlighted:
- Petitioners cannot benefit from a favorable policy no longer in existence when their case falls under a new policy due to fresh applications.
- Unauthorized use of leased property disqualifies the lessee from equitable relief and may subject them to penalties.
- Equitable relief is contingent upon good faith and full disclosure of material facts by the petitioner.
The Court referenced the Sindh High Court Judgment in [Constitutional Petitions No. D-2314 and 2315 of 2008], which held that petitioners should not be financially penalized for delays caused by respondents. However, this precedent was distinguished as inapplicable since the petitioner’s earlier applications were rejected and not pending without action. The Court also relied on Mst. Saeed Bano Siddiqui Vs. Cantonment Executive Officer (2018 SCMR 1616) to assert that the petitioner could not claim benefits under a policy no longer in force.
The Court dismissed the petition in limine, citing the petitioner’s concealment of material facts, failure to challenge earlier rejections, and unauthorized use of the property. The petitioner was ordered to comply with the premium and conditions stipulated under the 2007 Policy.
Powered by Froala Editor
