1993 PLP 679 (MLD)
ABDUL MAJID — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and another — Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 679 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ABDUL MAJID — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 679 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 679 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 679 (MLD) (ABDUL MAJID — Petitioner Versus GHULAM HUSSAIN and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Rizwan Amjad for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent No.1.
- Farooq Bedar, Addl. A: G. for Respondent No.2.
- A piece of agricultural land measuring 96 Kanals 12 Marlas was given the petitioner to the respondent on lease in the year 1966 for a period of years. The lease period commenced w.e.f. 15-6-1966. According to the learne counsel, after completion of the lease period, physical possession of the gar was handed over to the petitioner by the respondent in the year 197 However, the respondent-lessee did not accept the contention of the petition that the land was voluntarily given in possession of the petitioner. He, therefore, moved an application under paragraph 25 of MLR 115. The learn Assistant Collector Grade 1, Sialkot, accepted the application of to respondent thereby directing that the possession of the land in question not be handed over to him by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the vices the aforesaid order by filing this petition before this Court. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and status quo with regard to possession of the petitioner was maintained by this Court on 3-7-19 73. Despite repeated calls, no one appears on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1 Ghulam Hussain. The name of contesting respondent and that of his learned counsel, Mr. Sana Ullah Bajwa, are mentioned in the daily cause list. Respondent No.2, Tehsildar is represented by Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General. The pleadings of the parties show that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question. The limited dispute between the parties was as to whether the possession of the land was given by the lessee to the lessor in accordance with law. The fact, however, remains that the lease period was for a term of five years, which ended in the year 1971. This being so, it cannot successfully be argued on behalf of the respondent that at such a late stage, he would be entitled to the restoration of the possession of the land in dispute. Absence of the contesting respondent also demonstrates, that he is no more interested in the restoration of the possession of the land to him. The respondent No.1, therefore, is proceeded against ex parte. In consequence, the impugned order, dated 26-6-1973 is hereby set aside by accepting this petition with no order as to costs.
Headnotes / Summary
Para. 25
Land in dispute was leased out to lessee for a period of five years and after completion of lease period of five years, physical possession of land was handed over to lesser by lessee
Lessee in his application for restoration of possession filed under para. 25 of M.L.R. 115 had alleged that as possession of land was not voluntarily given by him to lessor, possession of land should be restored to him and that application of lessee was accepted by Authority-- Possession of land having been given to lesser after completion of specified lease period, lessee could not argue at later stage that he was entitled to restoration of possession of land in dispute
Absence of respondent on the date of hearing of the case also indicated that he was no more interested in the restoration of the possession of land in dispute
Order of Authority according to which direction was given to hand over possession of land in dispute to lessee, was set aside.
Judgment & Decree
Para. 25
Land in dispute was leased out to lessee for a period of five years and after completion of lease period of five years, physical possession of land was handed over to lesser by lessee
Lessee in his application for restoration of possession filed under para. 25 of M.L.R. 115 had alleged that as possession of land was not voluntarily given by him to lessor, possession of land should be restored to him and that application of lessee was accepted by Authority-- Possession of land having been given to lesser after completion of specified lease period, lessee could not argue at later stage that he was entitled to restoration of possession of land in dispute
Absence of respondent on the date of hearing of the case also indicated that he was no more interested in the restoration of the possession of land in dispute
Order of Authority according to which direction was given to hand over possession of land in dispute to lessee, was set aside. Ch. Rizwan Amjad for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondent No.1. Farooq Bedar, Addl. A: G. for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 2nd December 1992. A piece of agricultural land measuring 96 Kanals 12 Marlas was given the petitioner to the respondent on lease in the year 1966 for a period of years. The lease period commenced w.e.f. 15-6-1966. According to the learne counsel, after completion of the lease period, physical possession of the gar was handed over to the petitioner by the respondent in the year 197 However, the respondent-lessee did not accept the contention of the petition that the land was voluntarily given in possession of the petitioner. He, therefore, moved an application under paragraph 25 of MLR
115. The learn Assistant Collector Grade 1, Sialkot, accepted the application of to respondent thereby directing that the possession of the land in question not be handed over to him by the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the vices the aforesaid order by filing this petition before this Court. The petition was admitted to regular hearing and status quo with regard to possession of the petitioner was maintained by this Court on 3-7-19
73. Despite repeated calls, no one appears on behalf of the contesting respondent No.1 Ghulam Hussain. The name of contesting respondent and that of his learned counsel, Mr. Sana Ullah Bajwa, are mentioned in the daily cause list. Respondent No.2, Tehsildar is represented by Mr. Farooq Bedar, learned Additional Advocate-General. The pleadings of the parties show that the petitioner is the owner of the land in question. The limited dispute between the parties was as to whether the possession of the land was given by the lessee to the lessor in accordance with law. The fact, however, remains that the lease period was for a term of five years, which ended in the year 1971. This being so, it cannot successfully be argued on behalf of the respondent that at such a late stage, he would be entitled to the restoration of the possession of the land in dispute. Absence of the contesting respondent also demonstrates, that he is no more interested in the restoration of the possession of the land to him. The respondent No.1, therefore, is proceeded against ex parte. In consequence, the impugned order, dated 26-6-1973 is hereby set aside by accepting this petition with no order as to costs. H.B.T./A-286/L Petition accepted.