1989 PLP 1128 (SCMR)
JANAT BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1128 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ |
| Parties | JANAT BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1128 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1128 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Saad Saood Jan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1128 (SCMR) (JANAT BIBI and others‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Malik Talib Hussain Awan, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Oureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Altaf M. Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 10th September, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 24‑4‑1984 in W.P. No.193 of 1969). Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑State land‑‑Resumption of land for non‑compliance of requisite condition viz. non‑cultivation of the land up to the prescribed percentage of area within the prescribed time and non- cultivation of the prescribed food crops‑‑High Court had examined Crop Inspection Register which was found against the allottee ‑‑Controversy stood concluded by findings of fact against the allottee which did not suffer from any infirmity‑‑Leave to appeal refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought by the legal representatives of an allottee of State land against the dismissal by the High Court of their writ petition filed against the resumption of the land. The two main reasons for the resumption were: (a) non‑cultivation of the land upto the prescribed percentage of area within the prescribed time; (b) non- cultivation of the prescribed food crops. It is not denied that the relevant scheme did lay down the requisite conditions. Learned counsel, however, has raised some technical contentions and the main contention is that the conditions were satisfied and further that the orders impugned before the High Court were based on misreading of relevant material. After hearing the learned counsel at some length, we do not agree with him that the question of misreading before the High Court was not properly dealt with in the impugned judgment. Not only this, the relevant crop inspection register entry was also examined by the High Court and the same was found p against the petitioners' contention. The controversy it is clear, now stands concluded by findings of fact against the petitioners, which do not suffer from any infirmity. Leave to appeal, therefore, is refused. M.BA./J‑46/S Leave refused.