1986 PLP 10 (MLD)
FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ALLAH JUIRO — Respondent
| Citation | 1986 PLP 10 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Sind |
| Bench Members | Ayaz Hussain Ansari, Member, Board of Revenue |
| Parties | FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ALLAH JUIRO — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (b) Land Grant Policy, (a) Land Grant Policy |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 10 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Land Grant Policy, (a) Land Grant Policy as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 10 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Sind bench comprising: Ayaz Hussain Ansari, Member, Board of Revenue.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 10 (MLD) (FATEH MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ALLAH JUIRO — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- D.M. Lohano for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Para. 4(b)--Natural justice, principles of--Cancellation of lease of land during subsistence of lease tenure without giving notice for such cancellation, held, would violate principles of natural justice and would be improper.
Para. 4(b)--Disposal of land--Requirement--Both claimants being Haris, one residing nearer to disputed land, held, would be entitled to preference over the other residing away from such land. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Para. 4(b)--Disposal of land--Requirement--Both claimants being Haris, one residing nearer to disputed land, held, would be entitled to preference over the other residing away from such land. D.M. Lohano for Petitioner. Respondent in person. This is a revision petition against the order dated 7-2-1983 passed by the Additional Commissioner, Hyderabad Division rejecting the appeal of the petitioner and maintaining the order of the Colonization Officer, Sukkur Barrage, Hyderabad granting B. No. 8/1 to 4 admeasuring 16-00 Acres of Deh Char Taluka Tando Bago to respondent Allah Juiro an harap conditions.
2. Heard the parties and perused the case papers. The admitted position is that the petitioner as well respondent are Haris and both of them contested in Katchery. The petitioner had earlier been granted disputed pieces of land on lease for five years coming from Kharif 1979-80 to 1983-84. The land was granted on permanent tenure to the respondent on 20-12-1981 when the lease of land in favour of the petitioner was in subsistence without giving notice for cancellation of lease grant of the petitioner which was not proper.
3. The petitioner reside in village Ali Khan whereas the respondent resident at village Syed Shaman Shah. I have seen the Deh map and it transpires that the village of the petitioner is nearer to the disputed, land. By virtue of provisions contained in clause (b) of para. 4 of Land Grant Policy the petitioner is entitled to preference over the respondent.
4. In the circumstances, I set aside the order of the Additional Commissioner and allow the revision petition. The land in question should be granted to the petitioner. A . A . Revision allowed.