1989SCMR296 (PLP)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue. Lahore — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB — Respondent
| Citation | 1989SCMR296 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Aj al Zullah and lavid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue. Lahore — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989SCMR296 (PLP)?
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 1989SCMR296 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Aj al Zullah and lavid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989SCMR296 (PLP) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue. Lahore — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YAQOOB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Altaf Muhammad Khan,Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner.
- Malik M. Talib Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 6th August, 1988.
- Malik M. Talib Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salahuddin, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order dated 31-5-1982 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 1451 of 1977).
S. 10--Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)--Proprietary rights, Chiragah land--Petitioner opposing grant of proprietary rights to respondents in respect of land described as `Chiragah'--Scheme relevant to `Grow More Food' not containing any condition regarding bar to grant of proprietary rights when land under allotment happened to be Chiragah land--Conflict existing in judgments rendered by Board of Revenue and High Court regarding questions raised in respect of Chiragah land--Leave to appeal granted. Muhammad Ali v. The State P L D 1987 Rev. 42 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑The Provincial Government has sought leave to appeal against the acceptance of respondent's Constitutional petition by the High Court in a case arising out of the grant of proprietary rights to the respondent's side in respect of the land which has been described as "Chiragah". The petitioner's case is that the Chiragah land could not be made the subject‑matter of grant of proprietary rights under the scheme known as "Grow More Food Scheme". A learned Judge in the High Court has held that the scheme relevant to "Grow More Food" did not contain any condition regarding bar to the grant of proprietary rights when the land of under.allotment, is Chiragah land. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that even if the assumption raised by the High Court is found correct, the orders, directions and other instructions issued by the Government and the Board of Revenue from time to time regarding Chiragah land created a complete bar to the grant of proprietary rights to the respondents. Learned counsel for the caveator/respondent, on the other hand, has contended that if all the directions etc., relied from the petitioner's side, are examined together, they would not be considered as having created a complete bar. He has also pointed out that out of 190 acres of Chiragah land in the village almost the whole of it has already been transferred on the basis of proprietary rights. He has also cited instances including Muhammad Ali v. The State (P L D 1987 Rev. 42), to show that no uniform policy with regard to Chiragah land has been followed. Moreover, according to him, in any case, there was no bar with regard to the transfer of those plots of the Chiragah land which have been left out. We have noticed that there are conflicts in the judgments rendered by the Board of Revenue and the High Court regarding the questions raised in respect of the transfer of Chiragah land. Leave to appeal is, therefore, granted. The appeal shall be prepared on the present record with direction to the parties for filing all necessary documents. To be heard with similar other cases. M.Y.H./M‑59/S????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Leave granted.