1993 PLP 168 (SCMR)
REHMAT ALI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 168 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | REHMAT ALI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 168 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 168 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 168 (SCMR) (REHMAT ALI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑Para. 5‑‑‑Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 [M.L.R.115], para. 29‑‑‑Allotment of land on .basis of possession‑‑‑Resumption of land‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Mode of allotment‑‑‑Allotment made in favour of petitioner under M.L.R. 115, being wrong, land in question was rightly resumed‑‑‑Claimant from non‑agreed area having not opted to purchase land in question, same was to be resumed and petitioner being in possession of same was entitled to allotment under para. 5, M.L.R. 89 as amended by M.L.R. 91‑‑‑Proper remedy for petitioner was to apply to Deputy Commissioner for exercise of his power under para. ~S, M.L.R. 89/91.
- M. Farani, Bar‑at‑Law, Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 31st January, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 7‑2‑1988 of the Lahore High Court Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 5952/1987) Scrutiny of Claims (Evacuee Property) Regulation [M.L.R. 89/91)‑‑‑
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM J.‑‑‑A small piece of land measuring 44 Kanals forming part of Khasra Nos.1995, 4529, 6722 and 6723 situated in village Jamshed Khan, Tehsil Chunian, District Kasur, was allotted to the petitioner being in the cultivating possession vide order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur dated 16‑3‑1978. This piece of land alongwith others had been resumed under Martial Law Regulation 115 from one Nasibuddin by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur. Some litigation ensued and the matter reached the Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, who came to the conclusion that Nasibuddin from whom the land was resumed was a displaced person from Non‑agreed Area and the resumption was under para.8 of the Martial Law Regulation 89 as amended by Martial Law Regulation
91. The resumption of the land was not under Martial Law Regulation 115 whereunder owners holding land more than the permissible area were required to surrender the land and the same was to be resumed. Consequently, he cancelled all the orders of allotment made by the authorities under the Land Reforms Regulations. Petitioner filed Writ Petition No.5952 of 1983 which has been dismissed by a learned Single Judge vide order, dated 7‑2‑1988.
2. It is not disputed that the allotment made in favour of the petitioner by the Deputy Commissioner as Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur, under Martial Law Regulation No.115 was wrong because the land was not resumed under that Regulation. The land, in fact, was allotted to a claimant from Non agreed Area and it was resumable under Martial Law Regulation 89 read with Martial Law Regulation
91. Therefore, the petitioner cannot retain the allotment made by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Kasur, However, since the petitioner was allotted land on the basis that he was in possession thereof, the question arises regarding its disposal under the relevant law. Under the relevant law, Martial Law Regulation 89/91, para. 5, if the claimant from Non agreed Area had not opted to purchase the same the area was to be resumed and allotted to the person in possession. Apparently the claimant from Non agreed Area had not opted for its purchase at the relevant time. That being so the petitioner would be entitled to allotment of the land under para. 5 of Martial Law Regulation 89 as amended by Martial Law Regulation
91. The proper remedy for the petitioner is to apply to the learned Deputy Commissioner, Kasur for exercise of his powers under para. 5 of Martial Law Regulations 89/91. The petition is accordingly disposed of. AA./R‑203/S Leave refused.