P L D 1961 W (PLP)
KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant. Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1961 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant. Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. W. Abbasi, Member Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W (PLP) (KHUSHI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant. Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.24‑Breach of condition of personal residence‑Can be Rectified Order of resumption without issuing show‑cause notice, illegal.
Judgment & Decree
THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents Revision Side No. 127 of 1960‑61, decided on 20th April, 1961, District Lahore., Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.24‑Breach of condition of personal residence‑Can be Rectified Order of resumption without issuing show‑cause notice, illegal. This is a simple case of resumption of an Ahata in village Callan, Chak No. 9, Tehsil Chunian. The only point involved is whether it was necessary or not to issue the petitioner a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act before resuming the land. The Collector found on the reports of the Patwari, the Lambardar and some Pattidars that the petitioner was not living in the Chak and was not using the Ahata for his residential purpose. He did not call upon the petitioner to show cause under section 24 why the Ahata should not be resumed for breach of the condition of personal residence. The Additional Commissioner in appeal rejected the petitioner's plea on the ground that it was not possible to issue him a, notice because his whereabouts were not known. But this is not a tenable argument. The procedure for issuing notices and effecting their service is detailed in the Land Revenue Act and at least the spirit of this procedure should have been followed to issue the notice required under section
24. The breach of the condition o personal residence was rectifiable and, therefore, he was also entitled to claim an opportunity to rectify this breach. The provisions of section 24 are of a mandatory character and the Board has held time and again that they must be complied with in the letter and spirit. The Additional Commissioner's order, there‑' fore, cannot stand and is set aside. In effect, the revision petition is accepted. K. M. A Petition accepted.