2013 PLP 206 (YLR)
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DOR and 10 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 206 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sh. Azmat Saeed, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DOR and 10 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 206 (YLR)?
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 2013 PLP 206 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sh. Azmat Saeed, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 206 (YLR) (MUHAMMAD RAMZAN and another — Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through DOR and 10 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Shah Abbas for Petitioners.
- Qazi Khurshid Alam Siddiqi for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 30
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2
Acquisition of proprietary rights
Temporary injunction, grant of
Suit of petitioner assailing order of Member, Board of Revenue and grant of temporary injunction was dismissed by civil court and Appellate Court
Contention of the petitioners was that land in dispute was granted to them by temporary lease thereafter proprietary rights to the same had been conferred upon them by the Provincial Government--Validity
Disputed land admittedly was acquired for the Thal Development Authority, therefore, any surplus land would be the entitlement of the land-owners by way of return
Petitioners, in the present case, had specifically stated that they were tenants and not the owners of the land
Land could only be adjusted in favour of the land-owners, and the petitioners, in circumstances, were not entitled to the land
No proprietary rights could be granted to any third party as land did not belong to the Provincial Government
Courts below had rightly concluded that petitioners did not have a prima facie case
Orders of the courts below were based on correct appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto
High Court did not find any material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction
Revision was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
SH. AZMAT SAEED, J.
This Civil Revision is directed against the judgment dated 22-2-2011, whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order dated 8-3-2010 was dismissed.
2. Brief facts necessary for adjudication of the lis at hand are that the present petitioners filed a civil suit to call in question the order dated 24-10-2009 passed by the Member Board of Revenue, whereby it was inter alia held that the petitioners were not entitled to the land in dispute and they had fraudulently obtained proprietary rights thereto. Along with the plaint, an application for grant of temporary injunction was filed. Both the suit as well as the application for grant of temporary injunction was resisted. The trial Court, vide its order dated 8-3-2010, dismissed the application for temporary injunction. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed an appeal which failed to find favour and was dismissed, vide the impugned appellate judgment dated 22-2-2011.
3. The counsel for the parties have been heard and record, appended with this, petition, has been perused.
4. It is the case of the petitioners that the land in dispute had been granted to them on a temporary lease and thereafter proprietary rights had been conferred on the petitioners by the Provincial Government and, therefore, a prima facie case was made out entitling the petitioners to a temporary injunction.
5. The learned counsel for the private respondents has controverted the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners. It was the case of the respondents that they were landowners, whose land was acquired for Thal Development Authority, and therefore, were alone entitled thereto by way of return, as such land was not available for transfer of proprietary rights to any third person.
6. It is an admitted fact between the parties that the land in question was acquired for the Thal Development Authority, therefore, any surplus land was the entitlement of the landowners by way of return. The present petitioners in the plaint have specifically stated that in fact they were tenants under one Sher Bahadur and, therefore, were not owners of the land. In the circumstances, they were not titled to the land which could only be adjusted in favour of the landowners. Such land did not belong to the Provincial Government and, therefore, no proprietary rights therein could be granted to any third party, as has been held by the M.B.R. In the above circumstances, the trial Court concluded that the petitioners had no prima facie case which has been affirmed in appeal. The orders of the two courts below were based on correct appreciation of facts and circumstances of the case and the law applicable thereto. There is no material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction warranting interference by this Court. Consequently, this petition is without any merit and is dismissed. KMZ/M-854/L Petition dismissed.