CLC 2000

2000 PLP 159 (CLC)

MUHAMMAD ISHAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI‑‑‑Respondent

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
Civil Revision No.715‑D of 1983, heard on 5th October, 1999.
Honorable Judges
Mrs. Fakhar‑un‑Nisa Khokhar, J
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2000 PLP 159 (CLC)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members Mrs. Fakhar‑un‑Nisa Khokhar, J
Parties MUHAMMAD ISHAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI‑‑‑Respondent
Primary Law Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 159 (CLC)?

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 2000 PLP 159 (CLC)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mrs. Fakhar‑un‑Nisa Khokhar, J.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 159 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD ISHAQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL GHANI‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑

Representation

  • Ch. Shehbaz Khurshid for Petitioner. Masood Zakriya for Respondent
  • Dates of hearing: 4th and 5th October 1999,

Headnotes / Summary

‑‑‑‑S. 36‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Civil Courts‑‑‑Jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred under provisions of S.36, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, in any matter in which the Collector, Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue is empowered to dispose of the matters and those matters stand disposed of within their lawful authority and exclusive jurisdiction‑‑‑Civil Courts shall not interfere or entertain disputes falling within the hierarchy of the Revenue Courts. Noor Karim v. The State PLD 1975 (Rev.) 168; Jamal Din v. The Province of Punjab and others 1985 CLC 2387; Province of Punjab v. Allah Din 1989 CLC 2495; Nawab Din v. Province of Punjab 1986 MLD 921; Abdul Rahim and others v. Member (Colonies). Board of Revenue and others 1989 MLD 3148; Muhammad Ashraf v. Board of Revenue, West Pakistan and another PLD 1968 Lah. 1155; Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others PLD 1983 SC 53 and Alam Sher through Legal Heirs v. Muhammad Sharif and 2 others 1998 SCMR 468 ref.

Judgment & Decree

(2)??????? In consequence of the orders passed by the High Court, Government of the Punjab in the Colonies Department is pleased to order that without any reference to the date of allotment and the period of the termination ' of the lease all allottees under the Grow More Food Scheme, shall be granted proprietary rights provided that they fulfil the terms and conditions on which lease were granted. (3)??????? Government has been further pleased to decide that allottees mentioned in para. 2 who are to be given proprietary rights shall be restored to the lands from which they have been ousted (all subsequent leases of this area stand cancelled automatically), if the land in question has not been allotted under any permanent scheme. If, however, the land in question has been allotted under any permanent scheme, such allottees shall be accommodated in some alternative area with the same rights they would be exercised on the land in question which is not possible now to be released. (4)??????? This memo: supersedes the instructions contained in para..3 of Board of Revenue's memo. No. 2805‑82/2363/S(G)‑III, dated the 8th August, 1962 and those in opening para. of Memorandum No.8400/62‑3438‑CG. III dated 8th September, 1962. (Sd.) Deputy Secretary, Government of Punjab (Colonies Department)"

9. The interpretation of 'grant' under the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, is:‑‑ " 'Grant' includes any grant made in respect of any land to which these conditions have been applied; 'Grantee' means a person to whom the land has been granted under this statement of conditions and includes the successors‑in‑interest and the permitted assigns of the grantee but shall not include any holder of power of attorney on behalf of such grantee; Lessee' means a person holding State Land under temporary cultivation lease and shall be deemed to include the predecessors, successors and assigns of the lessee but shall not include any holder of power of attorney on behalf of such lessee; 'Temporary Cultivation Lease' means any lease other than a permanent or service grant; and 'Permanent Grant' means a grant in which promise for the purchase of proprietary rights has been made or in which a provision for periodical renewal /extension of the grant exists on fulfillment of certain conditions. "

10. So far as the Grow More Food Scheme is concerned, it is a permanent scheme and the temporary cultivation scheme under Notification dated 3-9-1979 is a temporary cultivation scheme, subject to the statement of condition for grant of proprietary rights vide Memo. No.1925-83/1253-CLI. Section 2 of the Scheme in the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, is reproduced as under: "(2)????? Exceptions and Reservations.

Unless it is otherwise specifically provided, the following lands shall be named to have been expressly excluded from every grant under the conditions-- (i)???????? lands already allotted under permanent grants; (ii)??????? lands reserved or earmarked but not yet allotted under permanent grants or for public purpose; (iii)?????? .................................................................................... (iv) ????? .................................................................................... (v) ?????????????????? ....................................................................................

11. The respondent was allotted the disputed property under Grow More Food Scheme on 15-12-1956. The period expired in the year 1961 The Board of Revenue from time to time has been issuing memos. or instructions in respect of this scheme to regularize the scheme. Therefore, the tenancy of the petitioner was terminated vide general order and not by non-fiilfillment of terms and conditions of the Grow More Food Scheme.

12. Even otherwise under the Grow More Food Scheme the waste land lying vacant could only be leased out for three years or five years. It is very surprising that the petitioner was given 15 years lease, although, prior to this he was given one year lease and it was being extended from time to time by the District Collector. Since under the exception and reservation of the terms and conditions of proprietary rights, as envisaged in the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, the temporary cultivation allottees are ineligible to get the proprietary rights as the land stands included in a permanent scheme. Moreover, no grant under the Colonization of Government Lands Act; 1912 can confer any right or title over the lessee. No lease holder can file a declaratory suit in view of provisions of Specific Relief Act, and section 36 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act which is reproduced below:- "

36. Jurisdiction of Civil Court barred as regards matter arising under the Act. A Civil Court shall not have jurisdiction in any matter of which the Collector is empowered by this Act to dispose and shall not take cognizance of the matter in which the Provincial Government. Board of Revenue or Collector or any other Revenue Officer exercise any power vested in it or in it or in him by or under this Act." The Civil Court being a Court of general jurisdiction no doubt can entertain the disputes regarding the rights or title or interest persons in the immovable property but the Code of Civil Procedure also provides under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. that where the Civil Court has jurisdiction to peruse the plaint and if it does not disclose a cause of action or is barred by law may reject the same. Under provision of law in colony matters the jurisdiction of Civil Court is barred in any matter in which the Collector, Additional Commissioner or the Board of Revenue is empowered to dispose of the matters and those matters stand disposed of within their lawful authority and exclusive jurisdiction, the Civil Court shall not interfere or entertain disputes falling within the hierarchy of the Revenue Courts. Therefore, no interference is made by this Court in the concurrent findings of facts arrived at by the Courts below. The Civil Revision is dismissed.

13. No order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./M-1232/L???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Revision dismissed.