1969SCMR161 (PLP)
MUNSHI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | 1969SCMR161 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle‑Akbar, C. J. and Abdus Sattar, J |
| Parties | MUNSHI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Tubewell Sinking Scheme |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1969SCMR161 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Tubewell Sinking Scheme as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1969SCMR161 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle‑Akbar, C. J. and Abdus Sattar, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1969SCMR161 (PLP) (MUNSHI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE BOARD OF REVENUE, WEST PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Hafiz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing : 7th November 1968.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 27th May 1968, in Writ Petition No. 438 of 1968). -‑Person allotted less than prescribed area of land under Scheme‑Question whether in view of term of Scheme (that area of allotment be 150 acres or thereabout) Member, Board of Revenue was justified in refusing claim for more land to make up deficiency‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Hafiz Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Sh. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing : 7th November 1968. ABDUS SATTAR, J.‑The petitioner was granted lease of lot No. 2, Chak No. 114/15‑L, fehsil Khanewal, District Multan under the Tubewell Sinking Scheme. The area mentioned in the letter of allotment was 128 acres, 3 kanals and 12 marlas. It was subsequently discovered, however, that the area of the khasras mentioned in the letter is 65 acres, 3 kanals and 12 marlas. The petitioner brought this fact to the notice of the Collector and prayed‑ for inclusion of more khasras for making up the difference. The Collector rejected the prayer but on appeal the Additional Commissioner accepted it and directed that uncommented and uncultivated area should be allotted so that the Tubewell lot of the petitioner comes to the prescribed limit. This order was later vacated on review. The petitioner went in revision to the Member, Board of Revenue. It was contended before him inter alia that the allotment of the petitioner being less than the permissible limit of the Scheme the petitioner was entitled to more land to make up the deficiency. This contention was repelled on the ground that the Scheme had ceased to operate. The writ petition filed in the High Court was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner was not entitled to any area more than the total of the khasras mentioned in the allotment letter. Leave is granted to consider whether in view of the term of the Tubewell Sinking Scheme, that the area of allotment was to be 150 Acres or thereabout the Member, Board of Revenue took a correct view in regard to the claim of the petitioner. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,
000. Leave granted,