P L D 1959 W (PLP)
ABDUL HAQ and another‑Petitioners Versus ABDULLAH and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDUL HAQ and another‑Petitioners Versus ABDULLAH and another‑Respondents |
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) (ABDUL HAQ and another‑Petitioners Versus ABDULLAH and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Iqbal Hussain for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Punjab Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1887), S. 16--‑Revision petition presented to Rehabilitation Commissioner instead of to the Board of Revenue‑--No satisfactory explanation submitted‑--Delay held to be against petitioner. (b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 24‑Allotment of land merely for occupation from year to year without there being any detailed conditions‑
Judgment & Decree
(b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 24‑Allotment of land merely for occupation from year to year without there being any detailed conditions‑
Land may be resumed by Collector without notice. Muhammad Iqbal Hussain for Petitioner. There is no satisfactory explanation why this petition of revi sion was initially presented before the Rehabilitation Commissioner. The delay is, therefore, a matter which I must hold against the petitioner. The petitioner's argument is that the state land in dispute was allotted to him in 1947 and could not, therefore, have been taken away from him unless he had first been given a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. This argument cannot be of any avail, because the allot ment in question was not in accordance with any detailed set of B conditions issued under the Act. The allotment was for purposes of occupation of the land from year to year. If the occupation of the petitioner was terminated in 1956 it only means that the Collector refused to give him this land for another year. Such a refusal is perfectly justified even without complying with any formality under the said section
24. In the above circumstances, I dismiss this petition for revision without issuing notice to the other party. A. H. Petition dismissed.