1994 PLP 2108 (CLC)
GHULAM JIIANI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2108 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Raza Ali, Member (Colonies) |
| Parties | GHULAM JIIANI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2108 (CLC)?
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 1994 PLP 2108 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Raza Ali, Member (Colonies).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2108 (CLC) (GHULAM JIIANI ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Ashraf Azim for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S33‑‑‑Imposition of Tawan for illicit cultivation of State land ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Petitioner on whom Tawan was imposed for illicit cultivation of State Land had contended that he was in fact a lessee of land in dispute, but he could not substantiate his version‑‑‑Petitioner who was occupying land in dispute without any lawful authority was rightly imposed Tawan by Assistant Commissioner/Collector‑‑‑Amount of Tawan being too much, same was reduced by 50% and order of Collector was modified accordingly in revision.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S33‑‑‑Imposition of Tawan for illicit cultivation of State land ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Petitioner on whom Tawan was imposed for illicit cultivation of State Land had contended that he was in fact a lessee of land in dispute, but he could not substantiate his version‑‑‑Petitioner who was occupying land in dispute without any lawful authority was rightly imposed Tawan by Assistant Commissioner/Collector‑‑‑Amount of Tawan being too much, same was reduced by 50% and order of Collector was modified accordingly in revision. Muhammad Ashraf Azim for Petitioner. This revision petition has been preferred against the order dated 27‑2‑1993 whereby the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, rejected the appeal of the petitioner.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner was imposed Tawan of Rs.3,98,062.50 for illicit cultivation of State land in Chak No. 101/15‑L, Tehsil Mian Channu, District Khanewal from 1980 to 1991 vide order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mian Channu dated 23‑10‑1991. The petitioner feeling aggrieved by this order of the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Mian Channu, preferred appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division, who rejected the same vide his order dated 27‑2‑1993. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the petitioner in fact is a lessee of the land in dispute but he has not been able to substantiate his version. It is clear that the petitioner occupied the said land without any lawful authority. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector has rightly imposed the Tawan. The amount of Tawan is, however, on the high side which is reduced by 50 per cent. The orders of the lower Courts are modified accordingly. The possession of the land should be resumed and the same should be included in the schedule of auction under Temporary Cultivation Lease Scheme.
5. A copy of this order be endorsed to the District Collector, Khanewal for compliance in respect of resumption of the lot. H.B.T./10/R Order accordingly.