1986 PLP 2073 (MLD)
NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus FARID‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 2073 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Elahee Rana, J |
| Parties | NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus FARID‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 2073 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 2073 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Elahee Rana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 2073 (MLD) (NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others‑‑Petitioners Versus FARID‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aslam Riaz for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S.115‑‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.19‑‑Tenancy rights in State land‑‑Transfer of‑‑Lessee of State land being not empowered to transfer his interest to possess such land by private contract, held, would not confer any possessory or proprietary rights upon purchasers of such land‑‑Any such stipulation without consent in writing of Collector being void, would not be acted upon‑ Purchasers of such land, could not as of right urge in suits that possession taken under contract of sale could not be interfered with‑ Courts below were justified in dismissing petitioners /purchasers suits for declaration and for perpetual injunction.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑S.115‑‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.19‑‑Tenancy rights in State land‑‑Transfer of‑‑Lessee of State land being not empowered to transfer his interest to possess such land by private contract, held, would not confer any possessory or proprietary rights upon purchasers of such land‑‑Any such stipulation without consent in writing of Collector being void, would not be acted upon‑ Purchasers of such land, could not as of right urge in suits that possession taken under contract of sale could not be interfered with‑ Courts below were justified in dismissing petitioners /purchasers suits for declaration and for perpetual injunction. Aslam Riaz for Petitioners. The land in dispute allotted to the respondent in‑respect of which the petitioners secured an agreement to sell as admittedly State land to which the Colonization of Government 'Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) applied.
2. According to section 19 of the Act nope of the rights or interests vested in a tenant by this Act shall without consent' in writing of the Commissioner or of such officer as he may by written order empower in this behalf, be transferred or charged by any sale, exchange, gift, will, mortgage or other private contract other than a sublease for more than one year. It further provides that any such transfer or charge made without such consent in writing shall be void, and if the, transferee has obtained possession, he shall be ejected under the order of the Collector.
3. In spite of the fact that the agreement to sell relied upon by the petitioner did not have the effect 'of transferring to them any ownership in the property, and ordinarily it was saved from being hit by the provisions, of section 19' of the Act, even then the respondent' could not by a private contract transfer to the petitioners his interest to possess the land. Any such stipulation without the consent in writing of Collector was thus void and could not be acted upon. The petitioners, therefore, could not as. of right urge in their suit that their possession, taken under, the contract of sale, could not be interfered with. The learned Courts below were justified in dismissing the petitioners' suit for declaration of ownership and for perpetual injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with their possession. There is no force in the revision petition and the same is dismissed in limine. H.B.T. Petition dismissed.