1996 PLP 1953 (SCMR)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through
| Citation | 1996 PLP 1953 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 1953 (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 1996 PLP 1953 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 1953 (SCMR) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB through). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 11th January, 1995.
- S.M. Masud, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner.
- 3. In support of the above petition, Mr. S.M. Masud, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner was in possession of the disputed portion of the land, he was entitled to the transfer of the ownership in respect thereof alongwith the allotted land. He has relied upon the instructions dated 22-1-1971 referred to in para. 4 of the impugned judgment which entitled the lessees to opt to purchase up to 10 % excess land in terms thereof.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 5‑6‑1993 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in Civil Revision No.518/D of 1992). ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petitioner obtained allotment of specified land under Grow More Food Scheme‑‑‑Petitioner in addition to such land was occupying certain portion of State land unauthorisedly‑‑‑Petitioner was granted proprietary rights over the land which he was allotted under Grow More Food Scheme, but he was refused proprietary rights over that land which was in his unauthorised occupation‑‑‑Petitioner's suit claiming rights of ownership over such land was dismissed but his appeal was allowed‑‑‑High Court set aside appellate decision and dismissed petitioner's suit‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑High Court had effectively dealt with the point raised in petition for leave to appeal, to the effect that petitioner being in possession should have been granted proprietary rights over the same‑‑‑Land in question, being not part and parcel of allotted land, petitioner could not rely upon those instructions which were applicable to those lands which had been allotted‑‑‑Land in question, had never been allotted to petitioner; his case was thoroughly examined by Competent Authority and he was not found entitled to grant of proprietary rights‑‑‑Petitioner's suit being misconceived, High Court had rightly set aside appellate judgment‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the 'judgment dated 5-6-1993 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Civil Revision No.518/D of 1992 filed by the respondent against the appellate judgment dated 8-4-1992 of the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal setting aside the dismissal of the petitioner's suit and decreeing the same, allowing the same by setting aside the above appellate judgment and thereby dismissing the petitioner's suit.
2. The brief facts are that the petitioner obtained allotment of 97 Kanals, 2 Marlas of land under Grow More Food Scheme. In addition to the above land, he occupied certain portion of land unauthorisedly of Khasras Nos.6 and 15 of Sq. No.87. Upon enforcement of the Scheme for grant of ownership rights, the petitioner applied for the transfer of the ownership of the above allotted land as well as of the land, which he unauthorisedly occupied measuring about 16 Kanals. The petitioner failed to get the above unauthorised land allotted before the Revenue Authorities inasmuch as orders dated 10-3-1982, 29-11-1983 and 22-5-1984 were passed against the petitioner. Thereupon, he filed a suit for declaration that the was entitled to the ownership rights in respect of the above unauthorised land as well. The aforesaid suit was resisted by the respondent. The learned Trial Court, after framing issues, recording evidence and hearing the parties, dismissed the petitioner's above suit by the judgment dated 19-11-1990. Against the above judgment, the petitioner filed a civil appeal, which was allowed by the learned Additional District Judge, Sahiwal, through his aforesaid judgment dated 8-4-1992. Thereupon, the respondent filed aforementioned civil revision, which has been upheld by the learned Judge in chambers. The petitioner has, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition, Mr. S.M. Masud, learned Advocate Supreme Court appearing for the petitioner, has vehemently contended that since the petitioner was in possession of the disputed portion of the land, he was entitled to the transfer of the ownership in respect thereof alongwith the allotted land. He has relied upon the instructions dated 22-1-1971 referred to in para. 4 of the impugned judgment which entitled the lessees to opt to purchase up to 10 % excess land in terms thereof.
4. The learned Judge in Chambers has effectively dealt with the above point. It may be observed that the disputed portion of the land is not part and parcel of the allotted land and, therefore, it is not open to the petitioner to rely upon the instructions dated 22-1-1971. Since admittedly the petitioner was a trespasser on a portion of the land which was never allotted to him and which was not part of the allotted land and as his case was examined by the competent authorities, his suit was. misconceived. The learned Judge in chambers has rightly set aside the appellate judgment. The petition has no merits. Leave is refused. A.A./G-510/S Leave refuse