2000 PLP 905 (MLD)
MUQARAB KHAN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents.
| Citation | 2000 PLP 905 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Riaz Kayani, J |
| Parties | MUQARAB KHAN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents. |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 905 (MLD)?
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 2000 PLP 905 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Riaz Kayani, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 905 (MLD) (MUQARAB KHAN and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others‑‑‑Respondents.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Khan Zahid Hussain Khan for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.10 & 30‑‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Proprietary rights in respect of land in possession under Fifteen Years Lease Scheme‑‑‑Entitlement‑‑‑Petitioners who were in possession of land by virtue of Fifteen Years' Lease Scheme and had been continuously cultivating said land, were held eligible to grant of proprietary rights of the land under notification‑‑‑Grant of proprietary rights were postponed by Authority on one pretext or the other till the land came within Municipal limits and petitioners became ineligible for the grant‑‑‑Municipal limits were reduced and petitioners again became eligible for grant of proprietary rights but despite said entitlement, petitioners were denied proprietary rights on ground that subsequent relaxation was not retrospective in operation‑‑‑If petitioners were otherwise eligible for grant of proprietary rights question‑of retrospectivity would not arise in their case, and they could not be denied proprietary rights on ground of retrospectivity. Ch. Muhammad Bashir, A.A. ‑G for the State.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Bashir, A.A. ‑G for the State. Petitioners five in number challenged the inactivity on the part of respondents in not granting them proprietary rights although they fulfilled all the terms and conditions of the grant.
2. Petitioners are undisputedly in possession of the land in question by virtue of 15 years' lease scheme and have been continuously cultivating the said land. On 3‑9‑1979 Government issued a Notification No.3215‑79/3973 C‑II by virtue of which the petitioners alongwith others were eligible to the grant of proprietary rights. The grant of the aforesaid rights were postponed on one pretext or the other till the land in question came within the municipal limits of Kot Mitha Tiwana upon which the petitioner, it is stated, became uneligible for the grant. However, they persisted in their demands and ultimately as luck would have it, the Municipal limits were reduced, again making the petitioners eligible for the grant of proprietary rights. Upon refusal by respondents to bestow the said rights, they were constrained to file the present writ petition.
3. Comments were called. In the comments submitted, all the facts were admitted, however, the petitioners were denied their due rights ground that the relaxation was not retrospective in operation.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has bitterly criticised the action adopted by the respondents.
5. Learned A.A.‑G. states that he has no cavil with the proposition that if the petitioners are otherwise eligible the question of retrospectivity does not arise in the circumstances of the case.
6. The respondents shall once again take up the case of the petitioners and if they are found to be eligible, they will not deny, the grant of proprietary rights to them merely on the ground of retrospectivity.
7. Resultantly, this petition is accepted. There shall be no order as to costs. H.B.T./M‑60/L Petition accepted.