P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)
LAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | LAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1961 W P (Rev (PLP) (LAL DIN‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (Y of 1912), Ss. 24 and 27‑Temporary cultivation lease a "schedule tenancy " Notice under S. 24 not necessary before passing order of resumption.
Judgment & Decree
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (Y of 1912), Ss. 24 and 27‑Temporary cultivation lease a "schedule tenancy " Notice under S. 24 not necessary before passing order of resumption. This is a revision petition against an order dated 30‑6‑1959, passed by the Commissioner, Rawalpindi Division, whereby he has dismissed the petitioner's appeal. The facts of the case are that the petitioner was granted State land on temporary cultivation conditions which required that the land must be cultivated by the grantee himself as clarified by the Punjab Government Letter No. 650‑TH dated the 17th July 1952. The petitioner, however, sublet the land to one Fazle Shah in Kharif 1958. This fact was checked by the Colony Assistant, exercising the powers of a Collector, on the spot and admitted by the petitioner before him. In Rabi 1959, however, he obtained the Girdawri report in his favour, it is said, by collusion with the Patwari. This Girdawri report has been rejected both by the Collector and the Commissioner. The petitioner now tries to explain away the entry for Kharif 1958 by saying that he had only sold the crop to Fazle Shah and that Fazle Shah was not his sub‑tenant. This is clearly an after‑thought and I see no reason to disagree with the concurrent finding of the two Courts below. A legal issue has been raised to the effect that a formal notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act was not served on the petitioner. But section 27 of the Coloniza tion of Government Lands Act, 1912 amended by the Amendment Act of 1944 excludes the application of section 24 to scheduled tenancies and the Punjab Government Notifications Nos. 2664‑C dated the 22nd September 1944 and 3662‑C dated 6‑12‑1944, made applicable to temporary cultivation leases under the aforesaid Punjab Government Letter No. 650‑TH dated the 17th July 1952, has declared these leases as scheduled tenancies under section 4 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. It, therefore, follows that section 24 does not apply to temporary cultivation leases and the fact that no formal notice under section 24 was issued in this case does not vitiate the order of resumption passed by the Collector. In effect the revision petition is dismissed. K. M. A. Petition dismissed.