1991 PLP 312 (CLC)
SHAHADAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1991 PLP 312 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Syed Sarfraz Hussain, Member (Judicial I) |
| Parties | SHAHADAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 312 (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 1991 PLP 312 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Syed Sarfraz Hussain, Member (Judicial I).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 312 (CLC) (SHAHADAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hidayatullah for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 5th May, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.164‑‑‑State land‑‑ Lease not extended on the ground that petitioner was not self‑cultivating land‑‑ Collector's order was upheld in appeal‑‑‑Entries in Revenue Record showed that petitioner was not self‑cultivating land in question‑‑‑Petitioner's version that he had applied for correction of entries of Khasra Girdawari was not tenable because such application was made only to manoeuvre extension of lease‑‑ Person cultivating the land had also made application on the ground that he was cultivating the land in question‑‑‑Petitioner was thus proved not to be cultivating the land‑‑‑Application for correction of entries having been made at a belated stage, adjudication thereof could not be awaited‑‑‑Courts below having given concurrent findings on the question of self‑cultivation, interference in revisional jurisdiction was declined.
Judgment & Decree
This revision petition has been filed against the order dated 8‑1‑1990 of the Additional Commissioner (Rev.), Faisalabad Division, whereby the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed and the order of the AC/Collector dated 5‑9‑1989 was maintained.
2. Brief facts of the case are that petitioner was leased out State land measuring 61 kanals 11 marlas situated at Chak No:231/JB till Rabi 1989. Thereafter, when the petitioner applied for extension of the lease the application was turned down by the AC/Collector Jhang on the ground that the petitioner was not self‑cultivating the land and therefore his lease could not be extended in accordance with the Government policy. The learned Additional Commissioner on appeal upheld the order of the AC/Collector.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also examined the impugned orders. Even a reference to the revision petition will reveal that in the Girdawari Register the land in question was not shown under self‑cultivation of the petitioner. The petitioner's version is that he has made an application for correction of entries of Khasra Girdawari. The learned Additional Commissioner has observed and rightly so that the application for correction of entries of Khasra Girdawari was made only to manoeuvre the extension of the lease. In this case one Gulzar had also moved application for the extension of the lease in his name on the ground that he was the actual tiller of the land. This further supports the fact that the petitioner was not self‑cultivating the land. The contention of the learned counsel that result of the application of the petitioner for correction of entries should have been awaited by the lower Courts, does not carry much weight because once the Collector was convinced on the basis of sound evidence that the petitioner was not self‑cultivating the land he simply could not proceed to extend his lease. Moreover, the application for correction of entries was made on 17‑5‑1989 at a very belated stage.
4. Two lower Courts have given concurrent findings on the basis of sound evidence that the petitioner was not self‑cultivating the land leased out to him. I, therefore, agree with them that the petitioner was not entitled to extension of the lease. The revision petition being substance is hereby dismissed in limine. AA./376/R Revision dismissed.