P L D (PLP)
AKBAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab |
| Bench Members | A. G. Riza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab |
| Parties | AKBAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | NAWAB DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners, (c) State land‑, Versus |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: NAWAB DIN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners, (c) State land‑, Versus, (a) State land‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab bench comprising: A. G. Riza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (PLP) (AKBAR ALI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Ahmad Masood for Petitioner (in R. O. R. 920/1970‑71) and for Respondent (in R. O. R. 147/1971‑72).
- Ch. Qadir Bakhsh for Petitioner No. 1 (in R. O. R. 147/ 1971‑72).
Headnotes / Summary
AKBAR ALI‑Respondent R. O. R. No. 920 of 1970‑71 and R. O. R. No. 147 of 1971‑72, decided on 28th March 1972, District Multan, Joint allotment‑--One of shareholders not taking any interest in land‑--Collector directed to serve notice why name of defaulter should not be removed from joint allotment under S. 24, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912). (b) State land Joint allotment‑-Portion of lot no longer in possession of one of allottees and being cultivated by some one else‑-Order of lower Courts cancelling allotment of share not inter fered with. Allotment‑-Cancellation of‑-Land not cultiva ted for 2 years and arrears of Government dues not paid‑Land ordered to stand resumed. Karam Hussain Colony Clerk and Muhammad Sadiq Patwari with Record.
Judgment & Decree
Condition of the land Cultivation by 133 Banjar Qadeem uptil now Joint cultivation. 134 do. do. 135 do. Akbar Ali: 3/5, Zafar Ahmad: 2/5. 136 Under cultivation Akbar Ali: 3/5. Zafar Ahmad: 2/5. (Nawab Din sold his share to Zafar Ahmad). 137 Cultivated Zaffar Ahmad: 2/5, Akbar Ali: 3/5. 138 Banjar Qadeem Joint cultivation by Mumtaz Ahmad etc. 139 Cultivated Akbar Ali: 3/5. Zafar Ahmad: 2/5. 140 Cultivated do.
8. Zafar Ahmad who was present during hearing stated that be purchased the share of Khair Din for Rs. 50,000.
9. I have considered all the aspects of the case. It is obvious that due to friction among the co-sharers in the lot the continuation of combined operation of the lot would not work. Among the shareholders Akbar Ali has cleared up all his dues up to Rabi 1971 and is also fulfilling all other conditions of cultivation in respect of his half share of 3 squares in the lot. It is however reported that in these 3 squares Mumtaz Ahmad and Ejaz Ahmad are also shareholders equal to 1/20th share in the whole lot but in actual practice they have not taken any interest. To avoid future complications it would be desirable to resolve the point regarding their continuing their names in this half share alongwith Akbar Ali. They may, therefore, be served by the Collector with a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912 why their names should not be removed from joint allotment with Akbar Ali, and separate decision taken with regard to maintenance or other wise of their names alongwith Akbar Ali.
10. So far as Khair Din is concerned it is evident from the Khasra Girdawari and his own statement before me that he is no longer in possession and his portion of lot is being cultivated by Zafar Abroad who has stated that he has purchased the share of Khair Din for Rs. 50,000 and has produced an Iqrar Nama in this regard Khair Din has also defaulted in the payment of the dues. I therefore do not see any justifiable ground for interference with the order of the lower Courts in cancelling his share of 2 squares. These two squares will stand resumed to the State.
11. As regards Nawab Din it appears from the Khasra Girdawari as well as the statement of his son Muhammad Hussain (Nawab Din has since died) that for 2 years there has been no cultivation on the land and he has not paid the arrears C of Government dues yet. In this case also, therefore, I do not see any justifiable ground for interfering with the order of the lower Courts and his share of one square would stand resumed, to the state.
12. Taking into account all the circumstances of the case, the share of two squares of Khair Din and one square of Nawab Din deceased should stand resumed to the state as per orders of the lower Courts. Akbar Ali may be allowed to retain posses sion of his share of three squares along with Mumtaz Ahmad and Ejaz Ahmad, subject to the orders contained in paragraph 9 above in respect of latter's two and subject to Akbar Ali's clearing up all the balance of Government dues. Since under the latest M. L. R. No. 115 of 1972, 50 acres have been declared as the economic holding, Akbar Ali would still be left with an economic holding in the three squares being allowed to be retained by him. Order accordingly.