P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)
MAHMOOD AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1972 Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab |
| Bench Members | A. G. Riza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab |
| Parties | MAHMOOD AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1972 Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab bench comprising: A. G. Riza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1972 Rev (PLP) (MAHMOOD AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad Bajwa for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
State land‑Unauthorised possession‑--Resumption‑--Petitioner paying penalty for Illicit cultivation of State land‑--No Justifica tion for further notice for resumption of such land.
Judgment & Decree
Revision No. 1650 of 1970‑71, decided on 12th October 1971, District Lyallpur. State land‑Unauthorised possession‑--Resumption‑--Petitioner paying penalty for Illicit cultivation of State land‑--No Justifica tion for further notice for resumption of such land. Bashir Ahmad Bajwa for Respondent. Arguments heard. The petitioner Mahmood Ahmad has produced a challan which shows that he has paid Rs. 450 on 23‑6‑1971 as penalty for illicit cultivation. It was further stated that he has to pay Rs. 410 for Kharif 1971 as penalty. There was therefore ample proof that Mahmood the petitioner was in unlawful possession of the land in dispute. The counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner should have been given a notice for the resumption of land. But since it is accepted by the petitioner that he was an unauthorized occupant there could be no justification of further notice for resumption. I have given careful consideration to the facts of the case and find no force in it. Hence rejected. Petition rejected.