P L D (PLP)
NOOR ILAHI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab |
| Bench Members | A. G. Riza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab |
| Parties | NOOR ILAHI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | State land‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: State land‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab bench comprising: A. G. Riza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (PLP) (NOOR ILAHI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Manzoor Hussain Sial for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Lease‑--Highest bidder given possession and rent accepted from him by revenue staff‑Such person cannot be ejected without infringement of tender conditions on his part and without show‑cause notice.
Judgment & Decree
I have seen the records of the case, the order of Commissioner dated 17‑8‑71 and have heard the learned counsel forth petitioner. His contentions are as follows:‑ (1) He was put in possession of the land after having been declared as the highest bidder. (2) He has been paying the rent regularly for the year 1970‑71 & 1971‑72 for which he has produced receipts. (3) He has installed tube‑well and incurred some expenditure in developing the land. So far he is concerned, the petitioner has therefore done every thing to carry out the purposes of the 10 years lease and had not incurred any disability on account of which he should be dispossessed.
2. It is not clear from the records how the petitioner was given possession of the land and how he was given challan for depositing rent. So far as the petitioner is concerned, if he had been given possession through the revenue staff and if rent had been accepted from him, legally it would not be possible to eject him without any infringement of the tender conditions on the part of the petitioner and without a show‑cause notice. The case is therefore remanded to the Collector through the Commissioner who should examine these aspects and take appropriate action permitted in law and the instructions issued by the Government. Till the matter is disposed of, the petitioner should not be dispossessed from the lot prematurely. Order accordingly.