1982 PLP 342 (CLC)
MOHAMMAD TUFAIL AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 342 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mohammad Zafarullah, J |
| Parties | MOHAMMAD TUFAIL AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) 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 1982 PLP 342 (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 1982 PLP 342 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mohammad Zafarullah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 342 (CLC) (MOHAMMAD TUFAIL AND 3 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus BOARD OF REVENUE (COLONIES) PUNJAB AND 2 OTHERS‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Akhtar Mir Wars! for Petitioners.
- ‑S. M. Zubair Asst. A: G. for Respondents. .
- Date of hearing : 23rd September, 1981. ‑
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑ S. 15‑State land‑Interest, payment of‑Petitioners purchasing land in auction, getting possession but land immediately resumed by Thai Development authority‑Board of Revenue ultimately allowing peti tioner's revision application and directing petitioner to make pay ment at a specified rate‑Held : Auction proceedings in circum stances notionally concluded with order of Board directing peti tioners to make payment at specified rate hence no interest could be charged from petitioners prior to such period. ‑
Judgment & Decree
‑S. M. Zubair Asst. A: G. for Respondents. . Date of hearing : 23rd September, 1981. ‑ The petitioners purchased the land in question in auction on 29‑10‑1960. The petitioners got the possession in pursuance of the auction but the land was resumed on 12‑11‑1960 by the order of the T. D. A. Ending various stages the matter came finally to the Board of Revenue when the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 21‑12‑1978 allowed the revision petition of the petitioners and they were directed to make the payment at the rate of Rs.1.000 per acre. When the petitioners went to make this payment they were asked to pay interest on this amount from 1960 onwards in view of condition No. 12 of Statement of Conditions governing the sale of land. The petitioners objected to this interest and the matter once again came to the Board of Revenue and the learned Member on 20‑12‑1979 directed that the petitioners should pay simple interest on the amount. He later on directed that the payment may be made in four, six monthly installments. This order was passed on 27‑1‑1930 on petitioners' review application.
2. The present writ petition is directed against the orders of the Boar of Revenue on the ground that no interest could be charged as the auction proceedings were suspended when the land was resumed on 12‑11‑1960 and the petitioners could not have made the payment except after the order of Board of Revenue on 21‑12‑1978 which finally allowed the petitioners to, purchase the property.
3. Notionally the auction proceedings have concluded with the orders' of the Board of Revenue on 21‑12‑1978. No interest from the petitioners could, therefore, be charged for any period prior to this date. If the peti tioners have defaulted in payment of the amount after this date, they will be liable to pay interest under condition No.
12. It appears, however, that the petitioners made deposit of entire amount within a period of two years, whereas in the terms of the conditions, the first instalment was due after a period of two years. Under these circumstances the petitioners have not defaulted in payment and, therefore, not liable to pay any interest.
4. In view of these considerations the writ petition is allowed and the orders of the Revenue Authorities asking the petitioners to pay interest on the amount are declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The parties are left to bear their own costs. R. M. A. Petition accepted.