1996 SCMR 534 (PLP)
BADAR DIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE
| Citation | 1996 SCMR 534 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ |
| Parties | BADAR DIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 SCMR 534 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 SCMR 534 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Fazal Karim, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 SCMR 534 (PLP) (BADAR DIN and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Sardar Shah Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Mahmood Ahmad Ch., Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate‑on‑ Record for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 17th January, 1995.
- Syed Sardar Shah Bokhari, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood A. Qureshi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Mahmood Ahmad Ch., Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmed, Advocate-on- Record for Respondent No.4.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 28‑5‑1994 of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, passed in Writ Petition No. 2305 of 1994). ‑‑‑‑S. 24‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Petitioners purchased State land in open auction but same was resumed for default in payment of price‑‑‑Land in question, was restored on condition that petitioners would clear dues outstanding against them‑‑‑Petitioners' failure to clear dues resulted in resumption of land on second time‑‑‑Refusal of all the forums below including the High Court to grant relief to petitioners‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioners' plea that in terms of Memo. No.3138‑75‑TH‑1, dated 28‑11‑1973 they were liable to pay price of land in yearly instalments and not in lump sum, therefore, resumption of land was not warranted by law, was misconceived inasmuch as, land in question was restored on condition that petitioners would pay price of land but on their failure to pay the same, land was again resumed for non‑fulfilment of condition of restoration‑‑‑Memo. dated 28‑11‑1973 could not be pressed into service and applied retrospectively for resumption had already taken place and acted upon before issuance of such memo.‑‑‑Order of resumption of land thus, did not suffer from any legal infirmity‑‑‑Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.
This is a petition for leave to appeal against the order dated 28-5-1994 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.2305 of 1994 filed by the petitioners against the order dated 24-2-1994 of the Member, Board of Revenue, Punjab, whereby the petitioner's revision petition against the order dated 4-1-1986 of the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue), D.G.Khan was dismissed, dismissing the same in limine. The brief facts are that the petitioners purchased land measuring 25 acres situated in Lot No.7, Chak No.557/TDA in open auction on 23-2-1961. They paid part of the price. However, the petitioners failed to pay the balance price. The land was resumed on 1-6-1967. But, upon filing of appeal, the Commissioner by his order dated 13-4-1971 set aside the above resumption on the condition that the petitioners shall clear the dues. They again defaulted and made a request for further time, which request was turned down by the Commissioner on 6-7-1980. The above order was impugned by the petitioners before the Board of Revenue through a revision, but the same was dismissed on 2-9-1980. The review petition also failed on 25-11-1982. Then the petitioners filed the aforesaid writ petition, which has been dismissed. The petitioners have, therefore, filed the present petition for leave to appeal.
3. In support of the above petition. Syed Sardar Shah Bokhari, learned A.S.C. appearing for the petitioners, has vehemently contended that in terms of Memo. No.3138/75/5778-TH-1 dated 28-11-1973 the petitioners were liable to pay first instalment by 15-7-1974 and thereafter other instalments by. 15th June of the subsequent years and thus the resumption of the suit land on the ground of default was not warranted by law.
4. The above contention is misconceived inasmuch as the land was resumed on 1-6-1967 on the ground of default in payment of the price. The same was restored on 13-4-1971 on the condition that the petitioners would clear the dues. Since the petitioners failed to clear the same, the above resumption remained intact. This had happened prior to the issuance of the above memo. In this view of the matter, the petitioners cannot press into service the aforesaid memo. which cannot be applied retrospectively to the cases in which action for resumption was already taken and acted upon. The impugned order does not suffer from any legal infirmity: Leave is refused. A.A./B-264/S ???????????????????????????????????? Leave refused.