1995 PLP 1058 (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,
| Citation | 1995 PLP 1058 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Abdul Shakurul Salam and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB, |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1995 PLP 1058 (SCMR)?
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 1995 PLP 1058 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Abdul Shakurul Salam and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1995 PLP 1058 (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB,). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Ali Mirza, Advocate instructed by Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner. .
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 29th March, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 26‑4‑1992 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore passed in Writ Petition No. 1598 of 1983). ‑‑‑‑S. 10‑‑‑Temporary Cultivation Scheme, paras. 3 & 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Denial of proprietary rights to lessee‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Petitioner claimed that combined effect of paras. 3 & 4, Temporary Cultivation Scheme was that he could have been granted proprietary rights up to his subsistence holding‑‑‑Lease in favour of petitioner was slightly more than subsistence holding‑‑‑Refusal to grant proprietary rights in respect of entire temporary Cultivation Scheme was contrary to terms enumerated in paras. 3 & 4, Temporary Cultivation Scheme‑‑‑Petitioner could have been denied relief to the extent of excess area of his leasehold‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to contention rained by petitioner.
Judgment & Decree
K ‑ M 1. 15‑Year Scheme 30 18 S. No. Name of Scheme, Area K ‑ M
2. Grow More Scheme 44 ‑ 18
3. Temporary Cultivation Scheme 18 ‑ 05 103 ‑ 0l The petitioner applied for conferment of proprietary rights in terms of the Temporary Cultivation Scheme as contained in Notification dated 3‑9‑1979. This was disallowed by the Revenue Authority and the Writ Petition was dismissed on the ground that a person can obtain only one grant.
2. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the eligibility and ineligibility of any lessee holding State lands have been defined in the Statement of Terms and Conditions for the purchase of proprietary rights vide clauses 3 and 4, which reads as follows:‑‑ "
3. Eligibility‑‑Any lessee holding State land on temporary cultivation lease who is either landless or owner of less than a subsistence holding and has been in continuous cultivating possession of the leased land since before Kharif 1977 may be eligible for the purchase of proprietary rights in such land‑‑ (i) in the case of lessee who is landless up to a subsistence holding; and (ii) in the case of a lessee who is owner of less than a subsistence holding, up to that area by which he falls short of a subsistence holding.
4. Ineligibility.‑‑(a) Any lessee who is owner of a subsistence holding or does not cultivate the land himself shall not be eligible for the purchase of proprietary rights in the leased land and shall surrender it peaceably to the Collector immediately on the expiry/termination of his lease. (b) A lessee (including members of his family) can have only one grant or share or interest therein either under these conditions or under any other scheme issued by the Government." Learned counsel submits that if the two clauses Nos. (3) and (4) are read together, the purpose is obvious that a lessee can have proprietary rights up to the subsistence holding. The leases in favour of the petitioner total 103 Kanals Maria, that is to say 3 Kanal 1 Maria more than a substance holding. Learned counsel submits that the refusal to grant proprietary right in respect of the entire temporary Cultivation Scheme to the extent of 18 Kanals 5 Marlas is contrary to the terms of the two clauses quoted above. At the maximum, he could be denied relief to the extent of 3 Kanals 4 Marlas
3. To consider the contention leave to appeal is granted. Status quo in respect of the lease in favour of the petitioner to the extent of 100 Kanals, subsisting holding. A.A./B‑253 Leave granted.