1989 PLP 1740 (SCMR)
ABDUL REHMAN and another Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, TOBA TEK SINGH and 2
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1740 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | ABDUL REHMAN and another Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, TOBA TEK SINGH and 2 |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1740 (SCMR)?
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 1989 PLP 1740 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1740 (SCMR) (ABDUL REHMAN and another Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/COLLECTOR, TOBA TEK SINGH and 2). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz, Oureshi, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ch. Mehdi Khan Mehtab, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- M.S. Baqir, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Salahuddin, Advocte‑on‑Record for Respondent No.3.
- Nemo for Respondents Nos.l and 2.
- Date of hearing: 28th November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 4th November, 1984 in Writ Petition No.5037 of 1983). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Proprietary rights, grant of‑ Petitioners' lease of land expired in 1972 and they remained in unauthorized possession from 1972 to 1983‑‑Petitioners applying for grant of proprietary rights under notifications issued in 1972 and 1983 on the basis of possession‑‑Land was allotted to respondent without disposal of petitioners' application for grant of proprietary rights‑‑Held. petitioners' possession after expiry of lease was unauthorized thus they could not claim grant of proprietary rights under the notifications on the basis of nature of possession and lease did not subsist in their favour since 1972‑‑When the land was granted to respondent under a permanent scheme the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the same.
Judgment & Decree
JAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 4th November, 1984 whereby writ petition of the petitioners was dismissed. Birefly the facts are that the petitioners were granted lease of the disputed land for temporary cultivation only for one crop i.e. Rabi 1972. It was not extended but the petitioners remaiped in possession of the said land unauthorisedly. Thereafter in 1983 taking advantage of the unauthorised possession they applied for the grant of proprietary rights under notifications issued in 1979 and 1983. But the land was granted to respondent No.3 by the Revenue authorities. The petitioners' case was that while their application for the grant of proprietary rights was pending the land had been illegally allotted to respondent No.3. Since their claim was rejected by the Revenue authorities, they challenged in the High Court the orders of grant of the said land to respondent No.3 under the Gallantly Award Scheme, but their writ petition was dismissed as stated above. Hence the present petition. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to argue before us that the petitioners were entitled to the grant of proprietary rights under the aforesaid notifications and while their application for the same was pending the disputed land should have not been granted to respondent No.3 without any notice to the petitioners. This argument of the learned counsel has no merit because the petitioners' possession after the expiry of the lease, from 1972 to 1983, was unauthorized and therefore they could not claim the grant of proprietary rights under the aforesaid notifications on the basis of this nature of possession. The High Court therefore was correct to arrive at the conclusion that the lease did not A subsist in favour of the petitioners since 1972 and therefore if the land was granted under a permanent scheme to respondent No.3, the petitioners had no locus standi to challenge the same. Since this is the position no interference is called for. The petition is therefore dismissed. MA.K/A‑529/S Petition dismissed.