1989 PLP 1085 (MLD)
PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD YAR and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1085 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Qayyum, J |
| Parties | PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD YAR and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1085 (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 1989 PLP 1085 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Muhammad Qayyum, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1085 (MLD) (PROVINCE OF PUNJAB‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD YAR and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Shabbir, Additional Advocate‑General for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑S.10‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115‑‑Concurrent finding of fact as to possession of respondent over land as its lessee‑‑Effect‑‑Respondent was leased out land by Collector‑‑Collector leased out same land to another person‑‑Record showed that respondent was placed in possession‑‑Fact of delivery of possession corroborated by daily diary and Khasra Girdawaris‑‑No evidence on record to rebut evidence produced by respondents‑‑No justification, held, existed to interfere with concurrent finding of lower Courts.
Judgment & Decree
Akhtar Shabbir, Additional Advocate‑General for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Respondents. Date of hearing: 5th March, 1989. A suit for declaration was filed by the respondents that they were the lessees of the suit land which could not be leased out by the petitioner to any one else during the pendency of the lease. This suit was decreed by the trial Court on 6th of May, 1974. The appeal, filed by the petitioner, was dismissed by Addl: District Judge, Lyallpur (Faisalabad) on 16th of January, 1975. Hence, this civil revision.
2. The land in question had been leased out to the respondents by the Collector vide his order,, dated 25th of May, 1971 as a Lambardari grant. The respondent alleged that he was placed in possession of the land on 22nd of September, 1971 and was abiding its terms and conditions and as such the lease could not be interfered with. However, since the Collector had leased out the land to some other person, the petitioner was obliged to file the suit.
3. The trial Court held the petitioner to be a lessee in possession and therefore, found that the Collector had no jurisdiction to grant the land to any other person. This finding was affirmed in appeal by the District Judge.
4. The only contention raised by the learned Addl.. Advocate‑General, was that though the respondent was granted lease on‑25th of May, 1971 but he was never put in possession and had, as such, no right in the land. This argument so far as it proceeds on the interpretation of section 10 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 is correct but it does not advance the case of the petitioner as it was found as matter of fact concurrently by both the Courts that the possession was delivered to the respondents by the Revenue Authorities under the order of Collector. This finding has not been shown to suffer from any misread or non‑consideration of any material. On the other hand, Exh.P.3, copy of the daily diary shows that the possession was delivered to the respondents in compliance with the order of the Collector. The entries in Khasra Gardwaris Exhs. P.2 and P.3) also supported this fact. No evidence was led by the petitioner to rebut the evidence produced by the respondent. There is, therefore, hardly any justification to interfere in this finding recorded by both the Courts below. As a result of this discussion, this revision petition fails and is dismissed hereby leaving the parties to bear their own costs. M.Z.S./P‑65/L Revision petition dismissed.