1999 PLP 1331 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1331 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Sh. Riaz Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1331 (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 1999 PLP 1331 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Sh. Ijaz Nisar and Sh. Riaz Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1331 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ISMAIL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zahid Hussain Khan, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioner. Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 4th February, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment/order dated 7-10-1996, of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, passed in W. P. No.17950/96).
S. 32/34
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
Illegal occupation of Government land by petitioner
Appropriate action .proposed by Assistant Commissioner. against petitioner was maintained up to Board of Revenue-- Petitioner's Constitutional petition was dismissed by High Court
Validity-- High Court on basis of material on record had found that petitioner had been shown as illegal occupant of land in question, in Khasra Girdawari, therefore, he was not entitled to any relief in equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of Court
Petitioner's claim that there had been gross misreading of Revenue Record and that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to him to establish his claim, was repelled
Khasra Girdawari produced by petitioner and relied upon by him clearly indicated that he was illegal occupant of land in question
Petitioner having failed to show his legal claim on that piece of land, in question, was rightly not considered entitled to discretionary relief
Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SH. IJAZ NISAR, J.
Leave is sought against the order dated 7-10-1996 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dismissing the writ petition of Muhammad Aslam petitioner.
2. The relevant facts are that an application was filed before A.C. Chiniot alleging that the land measuring 36 Kanals forming subject of Chowkidari grant was in illegal possession of the petitioner,: An inquiry was held and the allegations were found to be correct. The A.C. Chiniot directed that the crop sown in the land in question be given on Superdari to somebody and if no one was prepared to take the same the Girdawar, should take over it. The petitioner challenged the said order before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), which was dismissed with the direction that if the petitioner failed to give share to the Mueens the same may be distributed in accordance with law and that the possession of land be also restored to the Mueens by resorting to section 32/34 of Colonization of the Government Act, 1912. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a revision in the Board of Revenue Punjab, which was dismissed. Dissatisfied with the aforesaid orders, he filed a writ petition in the High Court, which too was dismissed. Hence, this petition.
3. The High Court observed that since in the Khasra Girdawari the petitioner had been shown as an illegal occupant of the land in dispute, he was, P therefore, not entitled to any relief in the equitable and discretionary jurisdiction of the Court.
4. It is contended that there has been a gross misreading of the revenue papers and that proper opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioner to establish his claim.
5. It is clearly mentioned in the Khasra Girdawari relied upon by the petitioner that he was an illegal occupant of the land in question. As he had failed to show his legal claim on that piece of land, he was rightly not considered entitled to the discretionary relief. Finding no infirmity in the impugned order we dismiss the petition. A.A./R-206/S Leave refused.