1997 PLP 731 (CLC)
NAIK MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1997 PLP 731 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Jiwan Khan, Member |
| Parties | NAIK MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1997 PLP 731 (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 1997 PLP 731 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Jiwan Khan, Member.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1997 PLP 731 (CLC) (NAIK MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf for Petitioner.
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 31st July, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.30‑‑‑‑Proprietary rights‑‑‑Grant of‑‑‑Order of Collector according to which only petitioner was held eligible for acquisition of proprietary rights in State land in dispute, was set aside by Additional Commissioner in appeal holding that as land in dispute had been separately cultivated by petitioner and respondent and that respondent had also deposited some instalments towards price of land in dispute, proprietary rights should be granted to petitioner and respondent in equal shares‑‑‑Evidence on record had established that tenancy right from the very beginning was jointly secured and managed by petitioner and respondent‑‑ Additional Commissioner, in circumstances, had rightly held that both petitioner and respondent could be granted proprietary rights in land in dispute which had been under their respective cultivating possession.
Judgment & Decree
Naik Muhammad s/o Fazal Muhammad s/o Sher Muhammad s/o Fateh Muhammad Fateh Muhammad. Badar‑ud‑Din. Khasras Nos. Khasras Nos. Khasras Nos. 60/12 4‑K‑18M 60/2 8 Kanals 60/1 8 Kanals 13‑Min 3K‑1M. 3‑Min 4K‑0M 10 8 Kanals, 16‑Min. 4K‑13M 8‑Min 4K‑OM 11 5K‑16M 19 9K‑9M 9 9 8K‑OM 20 9K‑11 Ghair Mumkin 4K‑19M ‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑‑ 21 6K‑13M Khal and Rasta. 24K 22 6K‑13 23 6K‑13 27K
49 Kanals Ever since Sher Muhammad died, the two brothers having been separately cultivating the following Khasras Nos.‑‑ (i) Naik Muhammad Fazal Muhammad. 60/13/1, 18/2, 19,20, 12‑min, 60/1,2,3/1,8/2,9,10,11/1, 21,22,23/1,26,28,30, 11/2, 12‑min (50 Kanals) (49K‑19M) The position as brought out by the Patwari in his report is corroborated by the record of rights.
6. The above resume of the record of the village Cooperative Society and the Revenue Record clearly brings out the following facts: (a) Though Naik Muhammad was enrolled as member of the Cooperative Society, the impugned tenancy was allotted in 1948, to Sher Muhammad s/o Badar‑ud‑Din and Naik Muhammad jointly provided the entry in the Register Taqseem‑e‑Arazi is considered to be genuine. (b) Right from the beginning the impugned tenancy was divided into three parts each part having been independently and separately cultivated by Sher Muhammad, Naik Muhammad and Fazal Muhammad respectively. On the death of Sher Muhammad the tenancy got divided in almost two equal shares‑‑each share being separately cultivated by the two brothers. (c) At least one instalment towards price amounting to Rs.5,640 was deposited by Naik Muhammad and Fazal Muhammad jointly.
7. The above factors sufficiently indicate that the tenancy right from the beginning was jointly secured and managed.
8. In view of what has been discussed above, I find myself in agreement with the learned Additional Commissioner who rightly held that both Naik Muhammad and Fazal Muhammad may be granted the proprietary rights in the Khasra numbers which have been under their respective cultivating possession. The revision petition being without any force is rejected.
9. The order in this case was reserved which may now be communicated to the parties through their counsel. H.B.T./55/Rev Revision petitioner rejected.