2007 PLP 1316 (YLR)
ABDUL SATTAR KHAN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT PUNJAB through Collector District Mianwali and
| Citation | 2007 PLP 1316 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | ABDUL SATTAR KHAN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT PUNJAB through Collector District Mianwali and |
| Primary Law | Land acquisition |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 1316 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land acquisition as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2007 PLP 1316 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Hamid Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 1316 (YLR) (ABDUL SATTAR KHAN and 4 others — Petitioners Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT PUNJAB through Collector District Mianwali and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zia Ullah Khan Niazi for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Demarcation
Land acquired by Irrigation Department in 1953 for construction of Rajbah Piplan
Both the petitioner/owner' of land as well as respondent Department did not dispute the claim of each other qua land in vicinity
Contention however was with regard the land falling along with the distributory
Courts below rightly held that disputed portion of land could be ascertained only through demarcation and that petitioners should have filed a suit to that effect
Such concurrent findings were not open to exception. Najeeb Faisal Chaudhry, Addl. A.-G. for the State. Muhammad Farooq, District Forest Officer.
Judgment & Decree
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, J.
It has been vehemently contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the respondents have admitted the ownership of the petitioners qua the land in dispute; therefore, the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below are erroneous that the petitioners should pursue demarcation and therefore file a suit to that effect.
2. Learned Law Officer, under instructions, submits that 684 Kanals land was acquired in the year 1953 for construction of Rajbah Piplan by the Irrigation Department and trees were planted along with both the sides of the canal with the width of 70 to 80ft. The disputed land falls in R.D. No.47000 to 51000. He has further stated that the trees planted are as old as 1953 i.e. when the land was acquired which fact proves that the trees belong to the respondent department. The respondents have admitted the ownership of the petitioners but they still assert that the land falling along with the distributory is the acquired land and not the land of the petitioner. Both the petitioner as well as the respondent department do not dispute the claim of each other qua the land in the vicinity, yet their competing claim is with regard to a specific portion of the land, which can be ascertained only through demarcation and rightly held so by the learned Courts below. Concurrent findings are thus not open to exception.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners, without further dilating upon the controversy, has shown his contentment that in the event of availing the remedy of demarcation before the competent forum, a direction to the learned trial Court is required for the expeditious disposal of the suit, for, a considerable time has already elapsed and statedly the petitioners are deprived of the use of their property. The petitioners, if approach the learned trial Court and institute the suit for demarcation, the learned trial Court shall decide the matter as expeditiously as possible but not later than three months from the date of its filing. Unnecessary adjournments shall not be granted to either party and the Court will decide the issue on its own merits.
4. The? instant?? petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. Petition dismissed as withdrawn.?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? F.B./A-28/L