2004 PLP 87 (CLC)
THE STATE — Appellant Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN — Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 87 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | THE STATE — Appellant Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN — Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 87 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 87 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 87 (CLC) (THE STATE — Appellant Versus KHADIM HUSSAIN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Raja Ghulam Hassan Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 10 & 30
Temporary Lease of Government land
Proprietary rights, grant of
Member (Colonies) vide his order made offer to lessee of land for exercise of one of the options with regard to land which had fallen in prohibited Zone: to continue as a temporary lease` to get alternate land outside the prohibited Zone; to purchase it on current rate
Lessee exercised last option and opted to purchase land on current pt ice
Process was started, assessment was made accordingly and lessee deposited the money in full as per assessment made by Assessment Committee
After order of Authority had attained finality; request was made on part of District Administration for review of order of Authority as land in question had fallen in the prohibited Zone
Unanimous fining of Board of Revenue that order of Authority passed on option of lessee had attained finality and the sale was to be construed as sale through private treaty and, in circumstances, would not require any relaxation of policy
Lessee having already deposited full amount, he could not be disturbed and conveyance deed in favour of lessee could accordingly be executed within specified period.
Judgment & Decree
Raja Ghulam Hassan Khan for Respondent. Brief facts of the case are that Member (Colonies) vide his order, dated 27-12-1991 made an offer to, the present respondent for exercise of one of the options with regard to his land which had fallen in prohibited Zone :-- (i) To continue as a temporary lessee; (ii) To get alternate land onside the prohibited Zone; (iii) To purchase it on current market rate.
2. The respondent exercised option No. III in this case and chose to purchase the land on current price applicable in 1991. The process was accordingly started and final assessment was completed in 1995. In the meantime, Deputy Commissioner, Jhang moved the Board of Revenue that the land had fallen in prohibited zone and the Board may, therefore like to review the orders earlier passed as the same were against the policy. The matter was again examined on the judicial site by Member (Colonies), vide order, dated 17-5-2000, it was held that the order passed on 27-2-1991 had attained finality and as the subsequently delay in completion of process was due to the Revenue Administration, the same could not be counted against the respondent. Accordingly, it was directed that the price assessed by District Price Assessment Committee in 1991 at the rate of Rs.44,752 by the Government would be final and should be recovered from the party.
3. The request of the District Administration, Jhang for review or earlier order was, therefore, effectively disposed of. Subsequently, vide order, dated 14-10-2000, Member (Colonies) had, however, directed that the case may be re-fixed on the judicial side to thrash out the implication of policy relaxation regarding sale of land in prohibited zone in this case. In the meantime, the respondent had deposited the money in full as per assessment made by the District Price Assessment Committee in conformity with order, dated 17-5-2000. The fresh proceedings came up before the joint Board today. It is the unanimous finding of this Board that order dated 27-2-1991 has attained finality and the sale in this case is to be construed as sale through private treaty and therefore, does not require any relaxation of policy.
4. The party has already deposited the full amount as per his statement and, therefore, need not be disturbed further. Conveyance deed in his favour may be accordingly executed by the District Revenue Administration within 15 days of receipt of this order. H.B.T./72/Rev. Order accordingly.