P L D 1959 (W (PLP)
ALLAH DITTA‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 (W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ALLAH DITTA‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 (W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER 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: M. W. Abbasi, 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) (ALLAH DITTA‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 15‑Deed of conveyance registered‑Cancellation of sale can be brought about only by resort to Civil Court. Once the conditions of a tenancy obtained by sale or other wise nave been complied with and full proprietary rights acquired by the execution and registration of a deed of conveyance, the purchaser ceases to be a tenant and becomes an owner. Therefore, section 15 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act cannot be applied against him. If the Revenue Officer wishes to take any action against him for cancellation of the sale, he will have to go to Civil Court and cannot do so by resorting to the Colonization of Government Lands Act. 529 P L R 1940 rel. This is a second appeal, although described as a revision petition, against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Multan, dated 19‑12‑1958, by which he set aside the order of the Collector, Lyallpur, granting an lhata in favour of the petitioner, Allah Ditta.
2. The facts of the case are simple. The Collector permitted the sale of this Ihata in favour of petitioner Alla Ditta on condition that he should deposit the sale money within two months. The petitioner complied with this condition and credited the entire price in the Government Treasury. A formal deed of conveyance was also executed and registered on 2‑7‑1958 in his favour. Then the respondent went in appeal on 22‑8‑1958 to the Additional Commissioner, who set aside the order of the Collector and directed that the Ihata be sold to respondent Muhammad Rafiq. It is now against this order that Allah Ditta, the aggrieved party, has come up in second appeal.
3. It is settled law that once the conditions of a tenancy obtained by sale or otherwise have been complied with and full proprietary rights acquired by the execution and registration of a deed of conveyance, the purchaser ceases to be a tenant and becomes an owner. Therefore, section 15 of the Colonization' of Government Lands Act cannot be applied against him. If the Revenue Officer wishes to take any action against him for cancellation of the sale, he will have to go to Civil Court and cannot do so by resorting to the Colonization of Government Lands Act. This legal position was made clear by the High Court in a case reported on page 529 P L R 1940.
4. The Additional Commissioner's order, was therefore, wrong and must be set aside.
5. In effect the appeal is accepted and the‑sale in favour of petitioner Allah Ditta is restored. A. H. Appeal accepted.
Judgment & Decree
Once the conditions of a tenancy obtained by sale or other wise nave been complied with and full proprietary rights acquired by the execution and registration of a deed of conveyance, the purchaser ceases to be a tenant and becomes an owner. Therefore, section 15 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act cannot be applied against him. If the Revenue Officer wishes to take any action against him for cancellation of the sale, he will have to go to Civil Court and cannot do so by resorting to the Colonization of Government Lands Act. 529 P L R 1940 rel. This is a second appeal, although described as a revision petition, against the order of the Additional Commissioner, Multan, dated 19‑12‑1958, by which he set aside the order of the Collector, Lyallpur, granting an lhata in favour of the petitioner, Allah Ditta.
2. The facts of the case are simple. The Collector permitted the sale of this Ihata in favour of petitioner Alla Ditta on condition that he should deposit the sale money within two months. The petitioner complied with this condition and credited the entire price in the Government Treasury. A formal deed of conveyance was also executed and registered on 2‑7‑1958 in his favour. Then the respondent went in appeal on 22‑8‑1958 to the Additional Commissioner, who set aside the order of the Collector and directed that the Ihata be sold to respondent Muhammad Rafiq. It is now against this order that Allah Ditta, the aggrieved party, has come up in second appeal.
3. It is settled law that once the conditions of a tenancy obtained by sale or otherwise have been complied with and full proprietary rights acquired by the execution and registration of a deed of conveyance, the purchaser ceases to be a tenant and becomes an owner. Therefore, section 15 of the Colonization' of Government Lands Act cannot be applied against him. If the Revenue Officer wishes to take any action against him for cancellation of the sale, he will have to go to Civil Court and cannot do so by resorting to the Colonization of Government Lands Act. This legal position was made clear by the High Court in a case reported on page 529 P L R 1940.
4. The Additional Commissioner's order, was therefore, wrong and must be set aside.
5. In effect the appeal is accepted and the‑sale in favour of petitioner Allah Ditta is restored. A. H. Appeal accepted.