P L D 1965 W (PLP)
GHULAM ABBAS NAQVI‑Petitioner Versus AZIZ DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GHULAM ABBAS NAQVI‑Petitioner Versus AZIZ DIN‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Punjab Tenancy Act (XVI of 1887) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (GHULAM ABBAS NAQVI‑Petitioner Versus AZIZ DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Zakir Ali for Petitioners.
- Abdul Rashid for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 64(2)‑Compensation to old tenant for planting trees on land allotted to landlord petitioner-- Permission of Rehabilitation Authorities not obtained when trees planted, but such authorities not objecting to such plantations-- Consent of landlord assumed in circumstances of case-Order for payment of reasonable compensation, held, justified‑West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, para. 42(c) refers to bar against payment of compensation to allottees and therefore inapplicable.
Judgment & Decree
Zakir Ali for Petitioners. Abdul Rashid for Respondents. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 26th of January 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby, while rejecting the revision filed by the respondent, he directed that the petitioner should bring suit of ejectment against the respondent for non‑payment of rent. The facts of the case are that the Assistant Collector, IInd Grade, ordered the ejectment of the respondent. The respondent went in appeal to the Collector but it was dismissed. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner who while exercising powers of the Commissioner, passed the order mentioned above. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that under para. 42(c) of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, an allottee can plant trees on the land allotted to him but he cannot claim compensation. This para. however, refers to allottees. The respondent is an old tenant. It is also established that he planted trees. Under the circumstances, section 64 of the Punjab Tenancy Act will be applicable. It is common ground that the respondent did not get the permission of the rehabilitation authorities who were for all practical purposes his landlord. The case will, therefore, be covered by section 64(2). The trees were planted in 1950 and till 1950 when the land was allotted to the petitioner, the rehabilitation authorities did not object to the planting of trees. The consent of the landlord will, therefore, have to be assumed. There is another alternative that the respondents may be allowed to take away his trees. This will not be advisable nor is the petitioner prepared to agree to such a course as it will spoil his land. In these circumstances the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner for payment of a reasonable compensa tion is perfectly justified. The second revision, therefore, fails and is rejected hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.