P L D 1959 W (PLP)
HAKIM ALI‑Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | HAKIM ALI‑Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. Z. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (HAKIM ALI‑Petitioner Versus REHMAT ALI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Ali Alvi for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (v of 1912), S. 10‑Allotment of Ihata‑Unauthorised occupant not to be preferred to applicant who has not taken law into his hand. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
S. 10‑Allotment of Ihata‑Unauthorised occupant not to be preferred to applicant who has not taken law into his hand. Ghulam Ali Alvi for Appellant. Respondent in person. This is an appeal under section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, read with section 13 against order dated 3‑8‑57, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, by which he reversed the order of the Collector and allotted the Ihata to respondent Rehmat Ali. 2. The respondent applied for the allotment of Ihata No. 216, Chak No. 39/12‑L, Tehsil Montgomery, and alleged that he had raised some structure in it. The appellant also applied for the allotment of the Ihata. On an enquiry it was found that the respondent had occupied the Ihata in an unauthorised manner and that the atia‑dars did not want that the Ihata should be given to him. The Collector held the respondent to be an unauthorised occupant, and allotted the Ihata to the appellant and directed the ejectment of the respondent. 3. The respondent preferred an appeal which was allowed by the Additional Commissioner on the ground that it was inadvisable to uproot the respondent. I am unable to subscribe to this view. If unauthorised occupants are preferred to those who do not take the law into their own hands, it must be an incentive to unauthorised encroachments. That being so, I see, no reason why the respondent should be preferred to the appellant. 4. The result is that the appeal is allowed, the order of the Additional Commissioner is set aside and the order of the Collector, allotting the Ihata to the appellant and directing the ejectment of the respondent is restored. A. H. Appeal allowed.