1991 PLP 1417 (CLC)
GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADMINISTRATOR, T.DA. and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1417 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Raja Afrasiab Khan, J |
| Parties | GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADMINISTRATOR, T.DA. and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1417 (CLC)?
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 1991 PLP 1417 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Raja Afrasiab Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1417 (CLC) (GHULAM MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ADMINISTRATOR, T.DA. and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Rashid for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 22nd April, 1991.
Headnotes / Summary
22nd April, 1991. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 4 & 10‑‑‑Sheep and Poultry Breeding Scheme‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Principles of natural justice‑‑‑Violation of‑‑‑Land in dispute was leased out to petitioners under Sheep and Poultry Breeding Scheme and petitioners who were in physical possession of land, brought same under plough by making huge investment of money and labour‑‑‑Petitioners were entitled to get proprietary rights of land as they did not violate any terms and conditions of lease, but their entitlement was denied by Authority concerned without hearing petitioners‑‑‑Order of Authorities which otherwise was passed in violation of principles of natural justice, was coram non judice and a nullity in law.
Judgment & Decree
This order shall dispose of,‑‑
(1) W.P. No.320 of 1971 titled Ghulam Muhammad etc. v. Administrator Thal Development Authority and another; (2) W.P. No.413 of 1971 titled Muhammad Ibraheem etc. v. Administrator Thal Development Authority and another. (3) W.P.No. 495 of 1971 titled Ghulam Muhammad v. Administrator Thal Development Authority and another; (4) W.P. No.649 of 1971 titled Nawab Din v. Administrator Thal Development Authority and another; and (5) Cr. O.No.72/W of 1983 titled Sher Muhammad v. Administrator Thal Development Authority and another, as the common questions of law and facts arise in all these matters.
7. Briefly stated the facts are that different lots of land were given to the petitioners in the year 1953 under Sheep and Poultry Breeding Scheme promulgated by the Thal Development Authority. Physical possession of the land in question was given to the petitioners for a period of fifteen years on lease basis. Case of the petitioners is that they brought the land under plough by making huge investment of money and labour. The writ petitions were admitted by this Court and status quo was also maintained. Learned counsel contends that the petitioners are in physical possession of the land in question and that they have brought the land in question under plough by making huge investment of money and labour. It is argued that the petitioners are entitled to get proprietary rights of the land in question because they did not violate any terms and conditions of the leases. These are very old matters. I find that the respondents did not contest the petitions by filing written statements in the cases. Even today, no one appears on behalf of the respondents. I am of the view that the respondents have lost interest, if any, in the land in dispute which is in possession of the petitioners. This being so, the respondents arc proceeded against ex parts. It is evident that the impugned orders were passed by the Colonization Officer, Bhakkar without hearing the petitioners. The impugned orders arc, therefore, coram non judice and a nullity in law. In the circumstances, the impugned orders arc set aside by declaring them without lawful authority and of no legal consequence. The petitions succeed and are allowed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./G‑443/L Petitions allowed.