P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)
NOOR MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W P (Rev (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 P (Rev (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 P (Rev (PLP) (NOOR MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Abdul Rashid Khan for petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Practice‑Appeal‑May be treated as revision. (b) Abadkari grant‑Land allotted to A resumed on his failure to pay instalment‑Allotment to B‑Land restored to A sub sequently on payment of Mallcana and Tawan‑Order for restoration not proper, as land teas in possession of B‑B afterwards surrendering possession of land‑Land restored to A. A. C. O. Liaquatpur for the State.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Abadkari grant‑Land allotted to A resumed on his failure to pay instalment‑Allotment to B‑Land restored to A sub sequently on payment of Mallcana and Tawan‑Order for restoration not proper, as land teas in possession of B‑B afterwards surrendering possession of land‑Land restored to A. Abdul Rashid Khan for petitioner. A. C. O. Liaquatpur for the State. This is an appeal against an order of the Commissioner, Bahawalpur Division, refusing to restore State land resumed from the petitioner sometime ago. Under section 13 (c) of the Land Revenue Act the appeal is incompetent but the facts, which would soon be narrated, would seem to justify the reopening of the case and, therefore, I am treating it as a revision application. The petitioner was given an Abadkari granted by an order dated 11‑7‑1950. When he failed to pay the installment for Kharif 1953 the Collector resumed the land under his order dated 26‑4‑1954 and the land was allotted to one Ghias Abbas Shah. The petitioner applied for restoration in 1955 and it is alleged that the restoration was allowed and a sum of Rs. 87‑8‑0 including Malkana and tawan was recovered from him on 30‑4‑1955. There is no order of restoration on record; but the recovery of Rs. 87‑8‑0 is proved from the Collector's report dated 26‑3‑1958, It seems that while an order for restoration was passed the land could not actually be restored because it had in the meantime been granted to another allottee. The Commissioner rejected his application for restoration of his grant under his order dated 7‑3‑1959. In the meantime it appears that Ghias Abbas Shah surrendered the lot and therefore the petitioner feels that he has a stronger claim to restoration of his land. The Commissioner refused to restore the grant apparently on the ground that it had already been allotted to another person. But now that it is available and both the malkana and tawan had been recovered from him two years ago, there is no reason why the available grant should not be restored to him. Accepting the petitioner's application and treating it as a revision, I would set aside the order of the Commissioner and order the restoration of his old grant on the usual conditions. K. M. A. Petition accepted.