1994CLC901 (PLP)
WARYAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M.B.R: ‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994CLC901 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J |
| Parties | WARYAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M.B.R: ‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994CLC901 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994CLC901 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Shaikh Abdul Mannan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994CLC901 (PLP) (WARYAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus M.B.R: ‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Abdul Hameed Khan for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 30‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑‑Proprietary rights‑‑ Claim of‑‑‑Constitutional Jurisdiction‑‑‑Exercise of‑‑‑Petitioner claimed proprietary rights in respect of land in dispute being sub‑tenant thereof‑‑ According to instructions of Board of Revenue issued through Notification cultivation of land in dispute must be prior to Kharif 1977, whereas petitioner commenced cultivation from Kharif 1979‑‑‑Courts below had concurrently found that case of petitioner did not come within ambit of Notification and that case of petitioner as a sub‑tenant, could not be superior to those who were in possession of land as regular lessees‑‑‑Petitioner having not been able to show any provision in Notification entitling him to claim transfer of land in dispute nor having been able to point out any illegality in concurrent orders passed in the case, concurrent orders of Courts below passed in accordance with law, could not be interfered with in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Judgment & Decree
Rana Abdul Hameed Khan for Petitioner. Date of hearing: 3rd November, 1992. The petitioner claims proprietary rights in respect of land measuring 106 Kanals, 2 Marlas in Chak No.753/GB, Tehsil Kamalia, District Toba Tek Singh in pursuance of Notification dated 3‑9‑1979.
2. The disputed land was allotted to one Nazir Ahmad under five years scheme but as he could not cultivate the same he was refused proprietary rights.
3. Op 8‑11‑1988 petitioner applied for the transfer of this land under Para 13(4) of the aforementioned notification dated 3‑9‑1979 on the ground of being sub‑tenant. This application was rejected by the Collector vide his order dated 12‑12‑1989 holding that the petitioner commenced the cultivation from Kharif, 1979 and further that the application was also not filed within time. It was further stated in this order that according to the instructions of the Board of Revenue the cultivation must be prior to Kharif 1977.
4. The petitioner filed an appeal and revision petition which were rejected vide orders dated 14‑4‑1990 and 26‑5‑1991 of the Additional Commissioner, Faisalabad and Member (Colonies) respectively. The petitioner has assailed all the three orders in this writ petition.
5. The case of the petitioner has been rejected mainly on the ground that his cultivation is not prior to Kharif, 1977. This is so laid down in para 3 of the Notification, dated 3rd of September, 1979 relating to the eligibility of a particular person. There is a concurrent finding of fact by all the three t Tribunals that the case of the petitioner does not come within the ambit of the aforementioned notification and, therefore, he cannot claim proprietary rights in the land in question. It is held by the Member, Board of Revenue that the case of the petitioner, a sub‑tenant, cannot be superior to those who are in possession of land as regular lessees. In these circumstances the petitioner was rightly refused proprietary rights in the land in pursuance of Notification, dated 3rd September, 1979.
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any provision in the notification entitling the petitioner to claim the transfer of the land in dispute nor has he been able to point out any illegality in the orders passed in this case. The order dated 26‑5‑1991 of the Member (Colonies) maintaining the orders of the Collector and the Additional Commissioner is in accordance with law. No case has been made out for any interference. In view of above this writ petition is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./W‑41/L Petition dismissed.