1995 PLP 795 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ALI‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1995 PLP 795 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Imtiaz Masrur, Member (Judicial‑II) |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ALI‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 795 (MLD)?
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 1995 PLP 795 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Imtiaz Masrur, Member (Judicial‑II).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 795 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ALI‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- G.H. Khan for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Ashraf Azim for Respondent:
- Date of hearing: 7th November, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.164‑‑ Entitlement to allotment of specific "Ihata"‑‑‑Collector allotting` two Ihatas to petitioner‑‑‑Respondent being in possession of one of such "Ihatas", Additional Commissioner set aside order of allotment in favour of petitioner to the extent of "Ihata" which was in possession of respondent‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Collector acted improperly by allotting two `Ihatas' to the same person especially without hearing respondent who was in possession of one of them‑‑‑Additional Commissioner had correctly modified that order by setting aside allotment of petitioner to the extent of `Ihata' which was in possession of respondent and allotting the same to respondent‑‑‑Order passed by Additional Commissioner was maintained in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 7th November, 1994. This is a revision petition against the order dated 23‑9‑1991, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan Division, Multan, whereby he accepted the appeal of the respondent.
2. The facts are that the CA./Collector, Vehari, vide his orders dated 3‑4‑1991 allotted Ihata Nos.286 and 287 measuring 10 Marlas, situated in Chak No.247/EB., Tehsil Burewala to the petitioner. The respondent filed an appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Multan Division, who accepted the same vide his orders dated 23‑9‑1991. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.
4. The learned counsel f6r the petitioner stated that the petitioner had applied for Ihata. The Collector allotted Ihata Nos.286'and 287 measuring 5 Marlas each to him. The respondent went in appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Cons.), who accepted the same on 23‑9‑1991 to the extent that Ihata No.286 measuring 5 Marlas was allotted to the petitioner while Ihata No.287 was allotted to the respondent. He stated that the plea of the respondent that he was not heard should not be given any weight because he had no locus standi to be heard. He further stated that it was incorrect that the respondent was in possession. He further stated that the land of the petitioner was more i.e. 7 Kanals. He further stated that the father of the petitioner owned 19 Marlas but he had other brothers also. He further stated that the respondent's father had got an Ihata measuring about 1 Kanal. He further stated that while the agricultural land of the father of the respondent had been transferred in the name of the respondent but he had not got the Ihata transferred in his name.
5. The learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand stated that the possession of the respondent had been admitted even by the A.C./Collector. He further stated that the respondent had applied for the said Ihata on 3‑1‑1990, while the allotment had been made on 3‑4‑1991, without considering his case.
6. I have given my careful thought to the arguments advanced on both sides and also perused the record and the impugned orders.
7. The factual position is that Ihata No.287 wag in possession of the respondent at the time when it was allotted to the petitioner. It was improper on the part of the Collector to allot two Data to the same land‑owner of the Chak. Further, both the Ihata were allotted to the petitioner without hearing the respondent.
8. In view of the above, Additional Commissioner (Cons.) vide his orders, dated 23‑9‑1991 has correctly decided that while Ihata No.286 may remain allotted to the petitioner, Ihata No.287 .may be allotted to the respondent. I, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the impugned orders which are upheld and the revision is dismissed. AA./18/R Revision dismissed.