P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AFSAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFSAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AFSAR‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
1960, District Sargodha. Grow More Food Scheme‑Grantee failing to cultivate Ian himself‑Allotment may be cancelled.
Judgment & Decree
Revision No. 232 of 1959‑60, decided on 17th October 1960, District Sargodha. Grow More Food Scheme‑Grantee failing to cultivate Ian himself‑Allotment may be cancelled. This is a revision petition against the order of the Addition Commissioner, Rawalpindi. The facts are as follows. A allotment of 121 acres was made in favour of one Muhamma Afsar in Mozia Jawarian in March 1959 under the Grow Mop Food Scheme. Later it was found that Muhammad Afsar wt was a motor mechanic living in the city of Sargodba was not real tenant that he had been put up as a figurehead by of Captian Khair‑Ullab Sharif, Head Supervisor of the District Board, and that the latter was enjoying the profit of the tenancy. But even Muhammad Afsar was not cultivating the land and had engaged a sub‑cotenant, Sardara, who was in actual cultivating possession on the spot. Muhammad Afsar's allotment was cancelled mainly on the ground that he was not cultivating the land himself which was against the spirit of the Grow More Food Scheme. The Additional Commissioner agreed with this view and rejected the appeal. I am in full agreement with the views of the Collector and the Commissioner that self‑cultivation is a necessary condition to a grant made under the Grow More Food Scheme. It is true that the scheme does not stress this fact in explicit terms but there are two indications in it which leave no doubt as to the intention of the Government. In the first place condition No. (v) lays down that "if any lessee fails to cultivate the land during Kharif 1958‑59 his lease should be cancelled." In the second place condition No. (vii) requires that the main criterion guiding the Collector should be "the ability of the man to bring the land under plough." These conditions taken together make it clear that the intention of the Government behind these small grants was that they should be cultivated by the grantees themselves. The revision petition, therefore, fails. K. M. A. Petition rejected.