1996 PLP 343 (MLD)
WALI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1996 PLP 343 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID and 2 others — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 343 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 343 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 343 (MLD) (WALI MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus ABDUL MAJID and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khan Muhammad Younus Khan and Ch. Farzand Ali for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
S.10
West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), S.164
Ten years' lease Scheme
Lessee under ten years' lease Scheme was entitled to extension of his lease for five years if he was owner of less than four acres of land and one year if he owned more than four acres of land-- Petitioner being owner of less than four acres of land, he was entitled to the extension of his lease for five years
Orders of Collector and Commissioner refusing to extend petitioners lease being against Lease Grant Policy were set aside
Petitioner was allowed to retain his lease in toto for another period of five years.
Judgment & Decree
This is a revision petition against the order dated 24-6-1979 of Commissioner, Sargodha by which the petitioner was allowed to retain only 12-1/2 acres out of 51-1/2 acres of leased land.
2. Briefly, State land comprising, 51-1/2 acres was leased out to the petitioner in 1968 for a period of ten years. After the expiry of lease period, the Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Samundari renewed the lease to the extent of 26-1/2 acres of land which was actually under the self-cultivation of the petitioner and included the remaining area in the schedule of temporary cultivation. The respondents filed an appeal against this order before the Commissioner who held that the respondents being actual tiller of the land were eligible to get its lease while the petitioner was not entitled to retain more than 12-1/2 acres out of the leased land. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the parties at length and have gone through the impugned order and the relevant instructions. Under the policy instructions a lessee under ten years' lease scheme is entitled to the extension of his lease for five years if he is owner of less than 4 acres of land and one year if he owns more than four acre of land. In the instant case the petitioner is reported to be an owner of less than four acres of land. He is, therefore, entitled to he extension of this lease do five years thus, both the orders of the Collector as well as of the Commissioner are against the policy instructions and not maintainable. In the result the revision petition is accepted, the impugned orders are set aside and the petitioner is allowed to retain his lease in toto for another period of 5 years A.A./35/Rev. Revision accepted.