P L D 1966 W (PLP)
ALI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 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 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, 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 1966 W (PLP) (ALI MUHAMMAD‑Petitioner Versus FATEH MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Fazal‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner.
- Syed Manzoor Hussain for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act (XIII of 1950), S. 3(5)‑Non‑payment of batai and land being allowed to deteriorate‑Ejectment can be ordered. P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1223 ref.
Judgment & Decree
P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1223 ref. Khan Fazal‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioner. Syed Manzoor Hussain for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 21st of September 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner (Revenue) Lahore, whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that the respondent applied fore the ejectment of the petitioner and the Revenue Officer, after necessary enquiries, ordered the ejectment on the ground that the batai had not been paid and the land was being allowed to deteriorate. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector who accepted it. The respondent then filed a second appeal before the Additional Commissioner who accepted it. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has quoted P L D 1950 Pb. (Rev.) 1223 and relied on section 70 of the Punjab Tenancy Act. The relevant section is section 3(5) of the Punjab Protection and Restoration of Tenancy Rights Act of 1950. In this case, there could be no question of improvement because no crop was standing on the land in dispute and no improvement had been effected or claimed. On the other hand, it was found that the Land had been allowed to deteriorate. There has, therefore, been no irregularity at all and I see no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision rejected.