1968 SCMR 600 (PLP)
NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS — Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 600 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | S. A. Rahman, C. J. and Hamoodur Rahman, J |
| Parties | NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 600 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 600 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: S. A. Rahman, C. J. and Hamoodur Rahman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 600 (PLP) (NOOR MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE AND OTHERS — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Shaukat Ali Khalvaja, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Abdul Karim, Attorney for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore, dated the 27th November 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1846/67). Martial Law Regulation No. 89 (as amended by Martial Law Regulation No. 91], Paras. 9 & 12-Person in possession of land in excess of entitlement, opting to purchase such land and paying two instalments but defaulting in payment of subsequent instalents Default condoned by Board of Reveritte-Contention that under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 only Deputy Commissioner and not Board of Revenue competent to deal with matter pertaining, to such lands-Held not correct-Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. A. RAHMAN, C. J.-The petitioners are occupants of certain lands which had been allotted to the fourth respondent by the Settlement Authorities, Later the disputed land was found to be in excess of the entitlement of ,the fourth respondent and his allotment was, therefore, cancelled. Under Martial Law Regulation No. 89, as amended by Martial Law Regulation No. 91, however, the fourth respondent had the option to purchase this excess land in accordance with a Scheme framed under the Regulation. The respondent duly exercised this option within the time allowed by law and even paid two instalments towards the price but defaulted in the payment of subsequent instalments. The default was condoned by an order of the Board of Revenue and the petitioners challenged the validity of that order by a petition for a writ to the High Court a west Pakistan. The petition was dismissed and the petitioners seek special leave to appeal. Mr. Shaukat Ali on behalf of the petitioners has contended before us that under the Scheme for the disposal of surrendered land prepared under Martial Law Regulation No. 89 the authority that could deal with the-land was the Deputy Commissioner .and not the Board of Revenue. The learned counsel argued that the Deputy Commissioner having cancelled the sale to the respondent for default in payment of the instalments the Board of Revenue had no jurisdiction to interfere in the matter as it did. Under paragraph 9 of Martial Law Regulation No. 89 surrendered lands vest in the Government of West Pakistan and can be disposed of by that Government as it thinks fit. Para graph 12 of the Scheme expressly lays down that on matters on which the Scheme may be silent the provisions of the Colonization of Government Lands Act, 1912, would be applicable. Under that Act, it is conceded by learned counsel, the Board of Revenue A would have the controlling authority over actions of the Deputy Commissioner. It must consequently be held that the High Court were right in ruling that the Board of Revenue was the controlling authority over the Deputy Commissioner in the present case and the impugned order was with jurisdiction. The petition for special leave has no merit and is hereby dismissed. Leave refused.