1989 PLP 1212 (SCMR)
AMIR‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1989 PLP 1212 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | AMIR‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 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 1212 (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 1212 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah and Usman Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1212 (SCMR) (AMIR‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and 2 others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Laqa Haider Zaidi, Advocate and Mian Ataur Rehman, Advocate -on‑Record for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order, dated 20th November, 1984 of Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No.3955 of 1984). ‑‑‑S.10‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑Allotment of land to petitioner in 1971 under 15 years' Lease Scheme‑‑Petitioner applied for proprietary rights in 1979 and Field Staff supported him‑‑Collector rejected the application on the ground that the land in question had been reserved for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir‑‑Petitioner failed before Board of Revenue and High Court in its Constitutional jurisdiction‑‑Petitioner relied on para. 2(ii) of the Scheme under which the grant of proprietary rights had been claimed by him and contended that although the ground mentioned in the order of proprietary rights to the petitioner was mentioned in the Scheme, but required condition had not been satisfied because when the allotment was made to the petitioner such condition was not applicable‑‑Held, condition in question was relatable to the grant of proprietary rights and same could not be granted to the petitioner under the Scheme by virtue of which the allotment was made to him in 1971‑‑Leave to appeal was refused.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.‑‑Leave to appeal has been sought, against the dismissal by the High Court, of a Writ Petition which had arisen out of the refusal by the respondents to grant proprietary rights to the petitioner on State land. As stated by the learned counsel the land in dispute was allotted to the petitioner in July 1971 under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 in pursuance of the then operative. 15 years' lease scheme. The petitioner, it is further stated, applied for proprietary rights in 1979 and the Field Staff supported him. But the learned counsel admitted, the Collector rejected the application on the ground that the land in dispute had been reserved for refugees from Jammu and Kashmir. The petitioner's appeal and revision up to Board of Revenue having failed, his writ petition was also dismissed. Leave to appeal, therefore, has now been sought. Learned counsel has read para. 2(ii) of the Notification (Scheme) under which the grant of proprietary rights has been claimed‑‑Punjab Statutes (P L D 1979 (Volume 6) 84). He has contended that although the ground mentioned in the impugned order for refusing proprietary rights to the petitioner is mentioned in the said scheme; but, he further stated the required condition has not been satisfied; because when the allotment was made to the petitioner this condition was not then applicable. After some arguments however, the learned counsel conceded that the condition in question is relatable to the grant of proprietary rights and that the same could not be granted to the petitioner under the Scheme by virtue of which the allotment was made to him in 1971. That being so no justification has been made out for grant of leave to appeal. The same, therefore, is refused. M.BA./A‑478/S Leave refused.