1989 PLP 1668(2) (SCMR)
BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others Petitioners Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1668(2) (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Ullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ |
| Parties | BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others Petitioners 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 1989 PLP 1668(2) (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 1989 PLP 1668(2) (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Ullah and Javid Iqbal, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1668(2) (SCMR) (BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others Petitioners Versus MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Ismail Choudhry, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Muhammad Aslam Choudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- Riaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Rana Maqbul Ahmad Oadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No. 5.
- Date of hearing: 22nd November, 1988.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, Multan, dated 7th March, 1983, in Writ Petition No.1829 of 1968). ‑‑‑S. 10‑‑Bara Scheme‑‑Petitioners were granted State land under Bara Scheme for a period of 8 years on the terms that if they brought under cultivation at least 80% of the land, they could apply for grant of proprietary rights to the extent of half of the lease holding‑‑Petitioners failed to achieve the target even in the extended period‑‑Petitioners at the most brought 30% of land under cultivation although according to report of Land Reclamation Officer the cultivation was only 17.69%‑‑Petitioners thus did not fulfil the condition of cultivation of 80% of the land‑‑Questions of fact having been decided against the petitioners no case for interference was made out‑‑Petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
DAVID IQBAL, J.‑‑This petition for leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 7 March, 1983, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.
2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were granted State land under Bara Scheme for a period of 8 years m 1956 on the terms that if they brought under cultivation at least 80% of the said land, they could apply for the grant of A proprietary rights to the extent of half of the lease holding, the other half to be surrendered to the State. Within the period of tenancy the petitioners failed to bring the requisite area under cultivation. However the period of lease was extended by the Collector but the petitioners again failed to achieve the target. As a result the Collector resumed the land holding that the petitioners were not eligible to retain the land or to the grant of proprietary rights. These orders were upheld in appeal as well as in revision. The writ petition whereby these orders were challenged had also been dismissed. Hence the present petition. In the meantime after resumption the land was allotted to respondent No. 5 (Muzaffar Mehdi) and even the proprietary rights had been granted to him. It was submitted by learned counsel that according to the Revenue record it was not correct that the petitioner had not brought under cultivation the requisite area and that therefore the Revenue Authorities were not justified in resuming the land. However the finding of fact is that the petitioners at the most brought 30% of the land under cultivation although according to the report of the land Reclamation Officer the cultivation was only of 17.69%. Thus they did not fulfil the condition B of cultivation of 80% of the land. Since the question of fact has been decided against the petitioners no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed. M.A.K./B‑107/S Petition dismissed.