1969 PLP 251 (SCMR)
MESSRS HIRJANA SALT & CHEMICALS (PAKISTAN) LTD.‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THATTA AND ANOTHER — Respondents
| Citation | 1969 PLP 251 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MESSRS HIRJANA SALT & CHEMICALS (PAKISTAN) LTD.‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THATTA AND ANOTHER — Respondents |
| Primary Law | ORDER, Government Grants Act (XV of 1895) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969 PLP 251 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER, Government Grants Act (XV of 1895) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969 PLP 251 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969 PLP 251 (SCMR) (MESSRS HIRJANA SALT & CHEMICALS (PAKISTAN) LTD.‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, THATTA AND ANOTHER — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hassanally A. Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court ins tructed by Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Attorney for Petitioner,
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 8th January 1969.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Karachi Bench, Karachi, dated the 16th May 1968, in Petition No. 168 of 1968).
S. 3‑Lease of Govern ment land‑‑Lease deed reciting that besides annual rent lessee bound to pay further amount as altered assessment per annum for non‑agricultural purpose‑Despite standing Order XV of Revenue Department condition of lease about payment of altered assessment, held, not excluded. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The lease deed placed on the record by the petitioner‑company shoos that besides the annual rent fixed at Rs. 3791 they undertook to pay Rs. 15,140 as altered assessment per annum for the entire area leased out to them for non‑agricultural purposes viz.: manufacture of salt. The conten tion that under the Standing Order XV of the Revenue Department altered rent could be charged only for the area actually under non‑agricultural use has, therefore, little substance. The lease is admittedly governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895 which inter ali provides :‑ "3. All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations ever contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding." The Standing Order XV is, therefore, to be excluded from con sideration in determining the validity of the condition of the lease about payment of altered assessment at Rs. 15,104 per annum. We are further of the view that even if Standing Order XV were applicable to the case the altered rent will be payable for the entire area leased oat to the petitioner for non‑agricultural purposes notwithstanding what part of the tenement was actually put to use for the manufacture of salt. The petition for leave to appeal is, in the above view, dismissed. Leave refused.
Judgment & Decree
Hassanally A. Rahman, Senior Advocate Supreme Court ins tructed by Muhammad Ibrahim Memon, Attorney for Petitioner, Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 8th January 1969. MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI, J.‑The lease deed placed on the record by the petitioner‑company shoos that besides the annual rent fixed at Rs. 3791 they undertook to pay Rs. 15,140 as altered assessment per annum for the entire area leased out to them for non‑agricultural purposes viz.: manufacture of salt. The conten tion that under the Standing Order XV of the Revenue Department altered rent could be charged only for the area actually under non‑agricultural use has, therefore, little substance. The lease is admittedly governed by the Government Grants Act, 1895 which inter ali provides :‑ "
3. All provisions, restrictions, conditions and limitations ever contained in any such grant or transfer as aforesaid shall be valid and take effect according to their tenor, any rule of law, statute or enactment of the Legislature to the contrary notwithstanding." The Standing Order XV is, therefore, to be excluded from con sideration in determining the validity of the condition of the lease about payment of altered assessment at Rs. 15,104 per annum. We are further of the view that even if Standing Order XV were applicable to the case the altered rent will be payable for the entire area leased oat to the petitioner for non‑agricultural purposes notwithstanding what part of the tenement was actually put to use for the manufacture of salt. The petition for leave to appeal is, in the above view, dismissed. Leave refused.