P L D 1959 W (PLP)
MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus NUR AHMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus NUR AHMAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN‑Petitioner Versus NUR AHMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 30
‑Purchase of proprietary rights‑Proprietary dues deposited
Conveyance still necessary‑--Delay in conveyance deed‑--Consequence
‑Punjab Colony Manual, Vol. 11, (1922 Edn.) page 57, sub clause (3)‑--Words "when any tenant shall have purchased the pro prietary right in any lands"--‑Meaning.
Judgment & Decree
S. 30
‑Purchase of proprietary rights‑Proprietary dues deposited
Conveyance still necessary‑--Delay in conveyance deed‑--Consequence
‑Punjab Colony Manual, Vol. 11, (1922 Edn.) page 57, sub clause (3)‑--Words "when any tenant shall have purchased the pro prietary right in any lands"--‑Meaning. The Collector's report dated 21‑8‑56, makes it quite clear that all the land which the previous Lambardar held had been paid for by him before his death. It is true that conveyance deeds were not executed in his favour or in favour of his heirs. The present respondent is his best heir according to the law of primogeniture. The petitioner contends that the respondent cannot be treated as a proprietor till he receives the conveyance deed. The argument is that a tenant cannot become a proprietor or that the proprietary title cannot pass to him until a conveyance deed has been executed in his favour. This argument cannot properly result from the phraseology adopted in the relevant sub‑clause in the statement of conditions issued under the Colonization of Government Lands. (Punjab) Act, 1912. The relevant sub‑clause is No. (3) at page 57 of the Punjab Colony Manual, Vol. II, 1922 Edition. There is no doubt that after the proprietary dues had been deposited in the Government Treasury, there is still a necessity for the conveyance deed. But the consequence of the conveyance deed being delayed is not that the man is not treated as a proprietor for any purpose, though he remains subject to certain conditions attached to the tenancy. In fact, the phraseology includes the words "when any tenant shall have purchased the proprietary right in any lands". This phraseology can only mean that even when the tenant becomes a proprietor, he continues subject to certain con ditions of tenancy until he receives the conveyance deed. The condition to which the petitioner's counsel has referred in detail does not lay down that a tenant at that stage would not count as a proprietor for purposes of his Lambardari qualifications. The respondent is not to blame if the completion of the convey ance deed is delayed in the office of the Collector. He has done all he had to do in order to purchase the proprietary rights. In the above circumstances, I consider that the Collector and the Commissioner were justified in deciding this case in favour of the respondent under rule 17 (ii) of the Land Revenue Rules. I accordingly dismiss this petition for revision. A. M. C. Petition dismissed.