2001 PLP 340 (CLC)
SHAFIQUE AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR and others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 340 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | Shahzad Hassan Pervez, Member (Judicial‑I) |
| Parties | SHAFIQUE AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR and others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (Y of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 340 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (Y of 1912)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 340 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: Shahzad Hassan Pervez, Member (Judicial‑I).
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 340 (CLC) (SHAFIQUE AHMAD and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD AKBAR and others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sheikh Abdul Latif for Petitioners.
- Ch. Ihsanullah for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑West Pakistan land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967/, S.164‑ Allotment of land‑‑‑Conversion of classification of land‑‑-Revision petition‑‑‑Collector allotted land reserved for common use of community to petitioners converting .same for use of residential purposes of petitioners‑‑ ' Larger interest of community could not be allowed to be hurt for convenience of a few‑‑‑Even otherwise Collector had no power to convert classification of land‑‑‑Order of Collector suffering from legal infirmity was set aside in revision by Additional Commissioner.
Judgment & Decree
Sheikh Abdul Latif for Petitioners. Ch. Ihsanullah for Respondents. Brief facts of the case are that vide separate orders of A.C./Collector, Burewala, dated 12th June, 1994, the petitioners were allotted Ihatas in the site which was reserved for Talab in Chak No.525/EB, Tehsil Burewala, District Vehari. The present respondents filed appeals against these orders before Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan Division Multan which were disposed of vide his order, dated 23rd August, 1995 with the following observations:‑‑ "The allotment of places which are for the common benefit of the community should not be made without consent of the local people which has not been obtained in the present case. Therefore, the allotment of impugned Ihata after creation of new Ezadi line is set aside. The place should be exclusively reserved for Talab. "
2. It is contended by learned counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners are without any residential site in the Abadi Deh. In view of this appreciation, A.C./Collector converted the site of Talab, which was no more under use, into Ihatas in accordance with law/rules and gave leases of the site to the present petitioners for residential purposes.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioners was asked to cite relevant provision of law/rules which empowered A.C./Collector to convert the classification/category of Ihatas in Chak. His answer was not available.
4. I have given careful consideration to the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioners. A.C./Collector has no power to convert then classification of Ihatas in Chak. In the instant case, the site which was reserved for common use of the community had been converted for use of soave residents of the Chak. The' large interest of the community cannot be allowed to be hurt for the convenience of a few: In this view of the matter, the order of Additional Commissioner suffers from no legal infirmity and is upheld.
5. It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioners that one Sabran Bibi has also been allotted 3 Marlas lout of the site in question. It is directed that all allotments made out of this ' Talab' to any individual stand cancelled as the change of classification by A.C./Collector is of no legal sanction. Further proceedings will be taken by A. C. /Collector in this regard. H. B. T./21/Rev. Revision dismissed.