1992 PLP 1585 (CLC)
Mst. HAMEEDA BIBI and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1585 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Ahmad, J |
| Parties | Mst. HAMEEDA BIBI and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1585 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1585 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Ahmad, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1585 (CLC) (Mst. HAMEEDA BIBI and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhri for Petitioners.
- Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for Respondent No.2.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Grow More Food Scheme‑‑‑Land allotted to respondent was in illicit cultivation of petitioner but subsequent thereto, he was allotted land under Grow More Food Scheme‑‑ Authority imposed Tawan on petitioner for illicit cultivation of land allotted to respondent‑‑‑Petitioner's counsel, on perusal of report of respondent/department, stating that he had no grievance against respondent allottee‑‑‑Court directing respondent Authority to consider case of petitioner, and if land was available, to allot the same to him but such area should in no case be sliced away from the allotment of respondent‑‑‑Court also directed respondent Authority to reconsider the extent of Tawan imposed on petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
Ghaus Muhammad Chaudhri for Petitioners. Syed Muhammad Kaleem Ahmad Khurshid for Respondent No.2. The report of the Department has been perused. The learned counsel for the petitioners, after perusing the record, states that he has no grievance, as far as the respondent Muhammad Sharif is concerned. The brief facts of the case are that the land allotted to Muhammad Sharif was in illicit cultivation of the petitioner but subsequent there to, the petitioner was allotted land under Grow More Food Scheme. The Department then imposed Tawan upon the petitioner for illicit cultivation of the land allotted to Muhammad Sharif. The learned counsel for the petitioner states that his client would be satisfied if it is observed that the petitioner should be accommodated to the extent of his full allotment which is less by 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas The report also affirms that the petitioner's allotment falls short by such area. In this view of the circumstances I would direct the respondent No.l to consider the case of the petitioner and if the land is available then 8 Kanals and 18 Marlas be allotted to the petitioner. However, it is clarified that such area will not be sliced away from the allotment of the respondent Muhammad Sharif. It is urged that imposition of Tawan to the extent of forty times is excessive and, therefore, needs reconsideration. It has now been argued that under the amendment, the maximum limit has been fixed at Rs.5,000 and such amendment has not been brought into my notice but, however, I would observe that the petitioner shall invoke the jurisdiction of the District Collector again for the reconsideration of the imposition of Tawan. With these observations, this petition stands disposed of. AA./H‑6/L Order accordingly