1996 PLP 346 (MLD)
MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 346 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | A. K Khalid Member (Colonies) |
| Parties | MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 346 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 346 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: A. K Khalid Member (Colonies).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 346 (MLD) (MANZOOR HUSSAIN‑‑‑Appellant Versus THE COMMISSIONER, SARGODHA DIVISION, SARGODHA and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Anwar‑ul‑Haq Gilani for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.161‑‑‑ Goverament's Memo. Nos. 10993‑77/195‑CLI, dated 7‑2‑1978 and 947‑78/367 CLI, dated 1‑3‑1978‑‑‑Extension of lease period‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Petitioner being lessee of State land, his application for extension of lease was partly granted‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑As per terms of Government instructions dated 7‑2‑1978 and 1‑3‑1978,' appellant being self‑cultivator and owner of less than four acres of land, was entitled to get extension of entire lot of which he was lessee prior to extension of lease‑‑‑Commissioner was not justified in reducing size of lot already on lease with appellant‑‑‑Commissioner's' order was set aside and that of Collector restored whereby he was granted lease of the entire lot.
Judgment & Decree
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.161‑‑‑ Goverament's Memo. Nos. 10993‑77/195‑CLI, dated 7‑2‑1978 and 947‑78/367 CLI, dated 1‑3‑1978‑‑‑Extension of lease period‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Petitioner being lessee of State land, his application for extension of lease was partly granted‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑As per terms of Government instructions dated 7‑2‑1978 and 1‑3‑1978,' appellant being self‑cultivator and owner of less than four acres of land, was entitled to get extension of entire lot of which he was lessee prior to extension of lease‑‑‑Commissioner was not justified in reducing size of lot already on lease with appellant‑‑‑Commissioner's' order was set aside and that of Collector restored whereby he was granted lease of the entire lot. Anwar‑ul‑Haq Gilani for Appellant. This is an appeal from the order, dated 24‑6‑1979 of Commissioner, Sargodha by which he partly accepted the appeal of Najam‑ul‑Hassan respondent and renewed the lease of the appellant up to 12‑1/2 acres only.
2. Briefly, State land measuring 49 acres, 4 Kanals and 11 Marlas situate in Chak No.495/JB, Tehsil Shorkot, District Jhang was on lease with the appellant for ten years up to Rabi,1978. On the expiry of the lease period, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector renewed the lease of the appellant up to Rabi 1980 at 15% enhanced rent, vide order, dated 2‑10‑1978. Najam‑ul Hassan who had applied for the lease of the land in dispute preferred an appeal against this order before the Commissioner who rejected the apptal but reduced the area of the appellant from 49 acres, 4 Kanals, 11 Marlas to 12‑1/2 acres. Hence this appeal.
3. Respondent has not turned up despite service. He is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant at length and have also gone through the impugned order. According to the policy instructions contained in Government Memo. No.10993‑77/195‑CLI, dated 7‑2‑1978 and 947‑78/367‑CLI, dated 1‑3‑1978, the appellant being a self‑cultivator and an owner of less than 4 acres of land, is entitled to get the extension of entire lot. The Commissioner was not therefore justified in reducing the size of lot already on lease with the appellant. Consequently I would allow this appeal, set aside the impugned order dated 24‑6‑1979 of Commissioner, Sargodha and restore that of the Collector, dated 2‑10‑1978 allowing the appellant to keep the entire lot for the extended period. AA./32/Rev. Appeal accepted.