2012 PLP 199 (SCMR)
ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Petitioners Versus ABBAS ALI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2012 PLP 199 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Nasir-ul-Mulk and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Petitioners Versus ABBAS ALI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012 PLP 199 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Rules, 1968 as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012 PLP 199 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Nasir-ul-Mulk and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2012 PLP 199 (SCMR) (ABDUL GHAFOOR and others — Petitioners Versus ABBAS ALI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners (in C.P. No. 1097 of 2010).
- Mudassar Khalid Abbassi, Additional A.-G., Punjab for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3 (in C.P. No. 1097 of 2010)
- Mudassar Khalid Abbassi, Additional A.-G., Punjab and Maqbool Ahmed, Secretary (Colonies) for Petitioners (in C.P. No.1199-L of 2010)
- Ch. Iqbal Ahmed, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.1 (in both cases)
- Muhammad Munir Peracha, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondent No.2 (in C.P. No. 1199-L of 2010).
- Date of hearing: 2nd May, 2011.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 22-4-2010 passed in W.P. No.3788 of 2010).
R. 17
Punjab Board of Revenue Notification dated 22-10-2007, clause 8(a)
Words joining village/ adjoining villages
Connotation and scope
Respondent Lambardar was allotted land in another village as no State land was available in the village of his appointment
Appellant assailed the allotment on the ground that the land had already been allotted to him, resultantly allotment was cancelled but High Court while interpreting words "joining village/adjoining villages" in clause 8(a) of Notification dated 17-1-2006, held that State land in any village in the Tehsil could be allotted to Lambardar
No distinction could be drawn between "joining and adjoining" and word "joining village" was superfluous
"Joining" or "adjoining" village or villages were those which were physically contiguous to and share a common border with village of respondent Lambardar and would not include village or villages which were not physically connected with village of Lambardar
Village, where land was allotted to respondent, was located not contiguous to village where respondent had been appointed as Lambardar
Land in question did not fall within scope of clause 8(a) of Notification dated 22-10-2007 and High Court had fallen in error in allowing petition filed by respondent and declaring the grant void
Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by High Court and restored that of Board of Revenue
Appeal was allowed.
Judgment & Decree
NASIR-UL-MULK, J.
Respondent No.1, Abbas Ali, Lumbardar of Thatha Esa, Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib, applied to the District Officer Revenue for grant of land under Notification dated 17-1-2006 as per his entitlement. On 27-3-2009 he was allotted 100 kanals land in Chak No. 17/GB, Tehsil and District Nankana Sahib as there was no State land available in village Thatha Esa. That allotment was challenged by the petitioner on the ground that the same land was leased out to him and he had invested a huge amount on its development. The allotment was cancelled on 28-10-2009 as the land was neither situated in village Thatha Esa nor in the adjoining village. This order was upheld by the Member Board of Revenue in exercise of his revisional jurisdiction. The respondent assailed both the orders before the Lahore High Court in constitution petition and the same was allowed upon interpreting clause 8(a) of the notification dated 17-1-2006 as amended by notification dated 22-10-2007, which reads:-- "In case State land is not available in village of Lamberdar he may be provided state land in physically joining village/ adjoining villages." The High Court held that the addition of the words 'adjoining villages to 'joining village' extended the scope of the provision so as to include villages other those contiguous to the village of the Lambardar. The Court went on to add that clause 8(a) would include State land in any village in the Tehsil where the Lambardar is appointed.
2. We heard the learned counsel for the parties. According to the Chambers Dictionary, the word joining means "to connect, to unite, to associate, to add or annex" and the word "adjoining" means to join on, to lie next to, to be in contact". For the present purpose, no distinction can be drawn between 'joining and adjoining' and perhaps the word 'joining village' is superfluous. 'Joining' or 'adjoining' village or villages are those which are physically contiguous to and share a common border with the village of the Lamberdar. It would not include village or villages which are not physically connected with the village of Lamberdar. Admittedly, Chak No. 17/GB where the land allotted to the respondent is located is not contiguous to Thatha Esa where the respondent has been appointed as Lamberdar. The land, thus, does not fall within the scope of clause 8(a) of the notification dated 22-10-2007. The High Court had fallen into error in allowing the respondent's petition and declaring the grant void.
3. Both these petitions are, therefore, converted into appeals and allowed, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and that of the Member Board of Revenue dated 1-12-2009 is restored. M.H./A-51/SC Appeal allowed.