1996 PLP 645 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ‑petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1996 PLP 645 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Board of Revenue Punjab |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AFZAL ‑petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1996 PLP 645 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1996 PLP 645 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Board of Revenue Punjab bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1996 PLP 645 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD AFZAL ‑petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ANWAR ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- ‑‑‑‑S.10‑‑‑Grant of lease to landless tenant‑‑‑Petitioner had been a lessee of 6‑1/2 acres since 1967, which had been extended from time to time‑‑‑Two acres out of petitioner's lease had been reserved for respondent who was Chowkidar‑‑ Petitioner had offered that if there was no\State land available in village he would have no objection to reservation of to acres for respondent‑‑‑Revenue Authorities were directed to find out other available State land for respondent but if area has to be taken from the lease of somebody, then two acres out of lease of a larger lessee than petitioner should be taken, for if land of petitioners as landless lessee was further reduced by two acres, he might not be able to subsist‑‑‑Case was remanded to Collector for implementing the order.
- Ch. Muhammad Ikram‑ul‑Haq for Petitioner.
- Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Respondent.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Muhammad Ikram‑ul‑Haq for Petitioner. Ch. Muhammad Ashraf Azeem for Respondent. This petition is against the order of the District Collector dated 3‑12‑1990 and the order of the Additional Commissioner dated 15‑9‑1991.
2. The petitioner has been a lessee of 6‑1/2 acres since 1967. He is landless. His lease has been extended from time to time.
3. Two acres out of his 6‑1/2 acres have been reserved for the respondent who is a Chowkidar.
4. The petitioner has offered that if there is no State land available in the village he will have no objection to the reservation of these two acres for the respondent Chowkidar. Moreover, in the opinion of this Court, the Revenue Authorities may not only try to find other available State land for the respondent, but if the area has to be taken from the lease of somebody, then the two acres out of the lease of a larger lessee than the petitioner should be taken, because if this landless lessee is further reduced by two acres he may not be able to subsist.
5. I, therefore, accept this petition conditionally and send the case to the District Collector for implementing this order. A.A./31/R Case remanded