1996 PLP 455 (CLC)
NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 455 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Murtaza Beg Birlas, Member (Judicial‑II) |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 455 (CLC)?
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 455 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Murtaza Beg Birlas, Member (Judicial‑II).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 455 (CLC) (NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hafiz Malik Muhammad Ramzan for Petitioner.
- Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164‑‑‑Grow More Food Scheme‑‑‑Allotment‑‑‑Register of Allotment under Grow More Food Scheme showed that petitioner was allotted land in question, as far back as in 1958 and such entry was further supported by entries of Jamabandi up to the year 1984‑85‑‑‑Entries of Khasra Girdawari subsequent to 1978‑79, however seemed to have been tampered with, showing name of respondent to be in possession‑‑Respondent taking advantage of such tampering of record got allotted the land and subsequently secured its proprietary rights‑‑‑Allotment was cancelled from the name of respondent and so also his proprietary rights‑‑‑Petitioner was allowed to purchase proprietary rights.
Judgment & Decree
R.O.R. No.798 of 1990, decided on 7th February, 1993. ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S. 164‑‑‑Grow More Food Scheme‑‑‑Allotment‑‑‑Register of Allotment under Grow More Food Scheme showed that petitioner was allotted land in question, as far back as in 1958 and such entry was further supported by entries of Jamabandi up to the year 1984‑85‑‑‑Entries of Khasra Girdawari subsequent to 1978‑79, however seemed to have been tampered with, showing name of respondent to be in possession‑‑Respondent taking advantage of such tampering of record got allotted the land and subsequently secured its proprietary rights‑‑‑Allotment was cancelled from the name of respondent and so also his proprietary rights‑‑‑Petitioner was allowed to purchase proprietary rights. Hafiz Malik Muhammad Ramzan for Petitioner. Zahid Hussain Khan for Respondent. Facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that the respondent was granted proprietary rights under the Grow More Food Scheme of State land comprising rectangle No.52 (Now 102) Killa Nos.l to 10, measuring 80 Kanals situated in Rakh Shahwala, Tehsil Noopur, District Khushab vide order dated 25‑1‑1987 passed by EACO/Collector, Jauharabad. The petitioner, who claimed himself to be allottee under the Grow More Food Scheme, felt aggrieved by the above said order and filed appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Sargodha Division, which was dismissed vide order dated 19‑2‑1990. Hence this revision petition.
2. I have heard the parties through their counsel and perused the impugned orders. Record of original allotment as well that of Patwari Halqa was also called and perused. It has been established from the entries of Register of Allotment under the Grow More Food Scheme that the petitioner was allotted the land in dispute vide order dated 13‑11‑1958. This entry is further supported f by the entries of Jamabandi up to the year 1984‑
85. However, entries of Khasra Girdawari subsequent to 1978‑79 have been tampered with showing the name of respondent i.e. to read Nazar Muhammad instead of Noor Muhammad. In view of the above position, I accept the revision/petition and. allow the petitioner to purchase the proprietary rights. The impugned orders are hereby set aside. A.A./29/R Revision accepted.