FCC rejects private ownership claim on state land
• Rules state property held by public functionaries can’t be alienated, except under law
• Says temporary cultivation lease does not confer proprietary rights
ISLAMABAD: The Federal Constitutional Court (FCC) on Monday rejected a proprietary rights claim by leaseholders of protected agricultural land, observing that state property held by public functionaries in trust for the community cannot be ‘alienated’, except under the law.
“Where official record discloses a legal prohibition affecting the very competence of the authority to transfer such property, courts cannot disregard it,” observed FCC Chief Justice Aminuddin Khan.
He was heading a two-judge bench also consisting of Justice Ali Baqar Najafi that had taken up a challenge by the member (colonies) of the Punjab Board of Revenue against a 2016 Lahore High Court (LHC) decision, which favoured the respondent, Rasheeda Bibi (deceased).
The respondent was leased 49 acres, 5 kanals, and 13 marlas of agricultural land in Chak No. 2/KB, Pakpattan, under the Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme from Kharif 1968 to Rabi 1978, with extensions granted periodically.
The respondents later sought proprietary rights under a government notification dated Sept 3, 1979, but the application was rejected on May 14, 2001, because the land fell within a prohibited zone.
Subsequent appeals and remands led to a 2008 order by the Pakpattan executive district officer (revenue), accepting the claim and directing the issuance of a challan for deposit of the land price.
This order was later reviewed with the permission of the member (colonies) of the Board of Revenue, resulting in the rejection of the respondents’ claim on Aug 24, 2011. However, the LHC subsequently set aside that rejection, prompting an appeal before the FCC.
During the hearing, the FCC framed two questions for determination, highlighting whether the land in dispute was amenable to the conferment of proprietary rights under the policy notification of Sept 3, 1979; and whether the EDO (revenue) was competent to review the Oct 28, 2008, order.
Justice Aminuddin noted that rules of pleadings, though essential to procedural fairness, cannot be invoked to perpetuate an illegality resulting in unauthorised divestment of state property, adding that the courts are under duty to take cognisance of any established legal impediment apparent from the record and ensure that public property was not alienated through administrative error, omission, acquiescence or otherwise, contrary to law.
The FCC ruled that a temporary cultivation lease conferred no vested or indefeasible right upon respondents to proprietary title. Their entitlement remained subject to the conditions of the Sept 1979 notification, particularly the prohibition relating to land falling within the prohibited zone.
Likewise, the successor revenue officer was competent, subject to the statutory requirements and prior sanction under section 163 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1967, to review an order of his predecessor, the FCC CJ observed.
The judge noted that the present controversy needed to be determined in accordance with the governing law and policy, rather than based on prolonged possession, extension of lease or payment of government dues.
A temporary cultivation lease and conferment of proprietary title are juridically distinct transactions, operating upon different legal incidents.
Whereas the former merely permits possession and cultivation without derogation from state title, the latter results in permanent divestiture of public property. The respondents’ reliance on the original temporary lease was equally misconceived as well, the judgement said, while setting aside the LHC order.
Published in Dawn, October 27th, 2026
