P L D 1959 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Petitioner Versus LABH SINGH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Petitioner Versus LABH SINGH‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD SADIQ‑Petitioner Versus LABH SINGH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Karam Elahi Chohan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19--‑Agreement of transfer with Crown tenant who is now evacuee without obtaining sanction of Commissioner‑Not valid‑Sanction by Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
S. 19--‑Agreement of transfer with Crown tenant who is now evacuee without obtaining sanction of Commissioner‑Not valid‑Sanction by Commissioner. Karam Elahi Chohan for Petitioner. The petitioner entered into an agreement with a Crown tenant who has now migrated to India. At the time of entering into that agreement, the petitioner or the other party did not obtain the consent of the Commissioner in writing under section 19 A of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. The petitioner appears to have parted with the whole considera tion or a substantial part thereof in respect of that agreement. The petitioner hopes to get the agreement or the transfer of tenancy confirmed by the Custodian of Evacuee Property pro vided I can confirm that agreement under the said Act. The confirmation of the agreement under the said Act is not a recognised. process. If the consent of the Colony Department is necessary, it should have been obtained before carrying out the transfer of the tenancy. The most liberal view could be that permission might be given in circumstances where the transferor would be able to take advantage of the Colony Department's permission. The transferee is now not entitled to deal with the tenancy as a result of the restrictions imposed by the law relating to Evacuee Properties. In these circumstances, it is unfair on anyone's part to expect that the Colony Department would give permission or confirm an agreement of the kind which is involved in this case. If the Custodian allows the present petitioner to stay in possession of the land in dispute subject to such conditions as he may impose, the Colony Department cannot interfere while the Evacuee Property Law remains in force. If the Custodian takes possession from the petitioner, the Colony Department would similarly be helpless, but in that circumstance it will be open to the petitioner to ask the Custodian to accept the amount paid as a charge on the property of the evacuee to whom the payment was made. For the above reasons, no interference on my part is warranted in this case. I, therefore, dismiss the petition without issuing notice to the local officers. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.