P L D 1959 W (PLP)
IMAM‑UD‑DIN‑Petitioner Versus RAHMAT ULLAH and others‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | IMAM‑UD‑DIN‑Petitioner Versus RAHMAT ULLAH and others‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1959 W (PLP) (IMAM‑UD‑DIN‑Petitioner Versus RAHMAT ULLAH and others‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Afzal Bajwa for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 10‑Allotment of land as Rifah‑i‑Am (public we fare) Ihata
To be made not in name of an individual but in that of the total community‑Allotment by Assistant Collector without Collector's approval invalid.
Judgment & Decree
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 10‑Allotment of land as Rifah‑i‑Am (public we fare) Ihata
To be made not in name of an individual but in that of the total community‑Allotment by Assistant Collector without Collector's approval invalid. Muhammad Afzal Bajwa for Respondents. The Rifah‑i‑Am Ihata in dispute was meant for allotment for purposes of erecting a guest house. It was clearly inappropri ate that it should be allotted in favour of an individual while a considerable number of other villagers object to such an allotment. The Assistant Commissioner's order of allotment is not a valid order under the Colonization Act. It can be considered to be an order passed in anticipation of the Collector's approval. Such an approval was refused in this case. The position, therefore is that the alleged allotment in favour of the petitioner does not amount to an allotment at all. He seeks my help to convert his position into that of an allottee. There is no doubt that if he has spent any money on putting up structures in this Ihata, the structures should not be demolished at‑this stage. I have, therefore, suggested to him that if he agrees, I may direct the allotment of the Ihata in favour of the total community working through the two Lambardars of the estate. He agrees. I, therefore, direct that the Ihata in question should be so allotted and be used for the common purposes of the estate. This petition for revision will be considered to have been accepted to this extent. A. H. Order accordingly. P L D 1959 W. P. (Rev.) 101