1986 PLP 1047 (CLC)
ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1986 PLP 1047 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑, This judgment will dispose of the following writ petitions, as common questions of law and fact are involved:‑, JUDGMENT |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1986 PLP 1047 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑, This judgment will dispose of the following writ petitions, as common questions of law and fact are involved:‑, JUDGMENT as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1986 PLP 1047 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1986 PLP 1047 (CLC) (ZAFAR IQBAL‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Petitioner.
- Mr. Khalil Ramdey, Asstt. A.‑G. for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 30th November, 1980.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 24‑‑State land‑‑Temporary tenancy‑‑Termination of Temporary lessees of State land had no vested rights for grant of further lease after expiry of that lease‑‑Government, held, was competent to prepare scheme for its management and also was competent to dispose of further lease of same through open auction. (1) W.P. No. 4509/80, Zafar Iqbal v. M.B.R., etc. . (2) W. P. No. 4726/80, Muhammad Feroze v. M.B.R., etc. (3) W.P. No. 4727/80, Muzaffar Khan v. M.B.R., etc. (4) W.P. No. 4728/80, Muhammad Yousaf v. M.B.R., etc. ' (5) W.P. No. 4729/80, Muhammad Rafiq v. M.B.R., etc. (6) W. P. No. 4730/80, Muhammad Anwar v. M.B.R., etc. (7) W. P. No. 4731/80, Javedul Jahan v. M.B.R., etc. (8) W. P. No. 4732/80, Khalid Noor v. M. B. R., etc. (9) W.P. No. 4733/80, Ali Akbar v. M.B.R., etc. (10) W.P. No. 4734/80, Mubin Zubair v. M.B.A., etc. (11) W.P. No. 4735/80, Tariq Noor v. M.B.R., etc. (12) W. P. No. 4736/80, Noor Ahmad v. M.B.R., etc. (13) W.P. No. 4737/80, Abdul etc. v. M.B.R., etc. (14) W. P. No. 4738/80, Hassan Bakhsh v. M.B.R., etc. (15) W.P. No. 4739/80, Saifal v. M.B.R., etc. (16) W.P. No. 4740/80, Mujahid Hussain v. M.B.R., etc. (17) W.P. No. 4741/80, Bagh Ali v. M.B.R., etc.
2. The land involved in these writ petition can be placed in two categories. Writ Petitions Nos. 4509/80, 4730/8(1, 4736/80, 4737/80, 4738/80, 4739/80, 4740/80 and 4741/80 deal with land which is Charagah. The remaining writ petitions relate to the land which is located within the prohibited zone. Under one under the latest instructions of the Board of Revenue, however, lease of the Charagah land and the land within the prohibited zone is to be disposed of by open auction. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the impugned order for the reason that since they had once become tenants under the State they are entitled to its continuance on the usual terms. It has also been contended that their tenancy could be terminated only under section 24 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act.
3. The petitioners are temporary lessees and, therefore, have no vested right for grant of further lease, Government is competent to prepare a Scheme for the Management of State land. The present lease having expired, Government is competent to dispose of further lease of land through open auction. Since the lease had expired, there is no question of termination of the lease. For the above reasons, there is no merit in these writ petitions. They are dismissed with costs. H.B.T. Petition dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
(5) W.P. No. 4729/80, Muhammad Rafiq v. M.B.R., etc. (6) W. P. No. 4730/80, Muhammad Anwar v. M.B.R., etc. (7) W. P. No. 4731/80, Javedul Jahan v. M.B.R., etc. (8) W. P. No. 4732/80, Khalid Noor v. M. B. R., etc. (9) W.P. No. 4733/80, Ali Akbar v. M.B.R., etc. (10) W.P. No. 4734/80, Mubin Zubair v. M.B.A., etc. (11) W.P. No. 4735/80, Tariq Noor v. M.B.R., etc. (12) W. P. No. 4736/80, Noor Ahmad v. M.B.R., etc. (13) W.P. No. 4737/80, Abdul etc. v. M.B.R., etc. (14) W. P. No. 4738/80, Hassan Bakhsh v. M.B.R., etc. (15) W.P. No. 4739/80, Saifal v. M.B.R., etc. (16) W.P. No. 4740/80, Mujahid Hussain v. M.B.R., etc. (17) W.P. No. 4741/80, Bagh Ali v. M.B.R., etc.
2. The land involved in these writ petition can be placed in two categories. Writ Petitions Nos. 4509/80, 4730/8(1, 4736/80, 4737/80, 4738/80, 4739/80, 4740/80 and 4741/80 deal with land which is Charagah. The remaining writ petitions relate to the land which is located within the prohibited zone. Under one under the latest instructions of the Board of Revenue, however, lease of the Charagah land and the land within the prohibited zone is to be disposed of by open auction. The petitioners feel aggrieved by the impugned order for the reason that since they had once become tenants under the State they are entitled to its continuance on the usual terms. It has also been contended that their tenancy could be terminated only under section 24 of the Colonization of the Government Lands Act.
3. The petitioners are temporary lessees and, therefore, have no vested right for grant of further lease, Government is competent to prepare a Scheme for the Management of State land. The present lease having expired, Government is competent to dispose of further lease of land through open auction. Since the lease had expired, there is no question of termination of the lease. For the above reasons, there is no merit in these writ petitions. They are dismissed with costs. H.B.T. Petition dismissed.