1985 PLP 817 (SCMR)
MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Appellant Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1985 PLP 817 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Salahuddin Ahmad and Muhammad Afzal cheema, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Appellant Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Grow More Food Scheme‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1985 PLP 817 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Grow More Food Scheme‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1985 PLP 817 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad Yaqub Ali, Salahuddin Ahmad and Muhammad Afzal cheema, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1985 PLP 817 (SCMR) (MUHAMMAD SHAFI‑‑Appellant Versus MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE and others‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, M.A.Bajwa, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 to 3. Ex parte for Respondent No.4: Ex parte.
- Mehmood Ahmad Qureshi and Sh. Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on Record for Appellants.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, M.A.Bajwa, Advocate and Sh.Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Abdur Rahim Rana, Sh.Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Appellants.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, M.A.Bajwa, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Ijaz Hussain Batalvi, Senior Advocate, M. A. Qureshi Advocate on‑Record for Appellants.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, M.A.Bajwa, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
- Nemo for Respondent 3.
- Muhammad Ismail Bhatti, Senior Advocate, S.Inayat Hussain Shah, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, M.A.Bajwa, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, M.A.Bajwa, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents 1 to 3.
- Tanveer Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent No.4.
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. .
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, M.A.Bajwa, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- S.Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, M.A.Bajwa, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents 1 and 2.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Sh.Ijaz All, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants(in these three Appeals ),.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab. Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants. Ex parte for Respondent' Ex parte,
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Ex parte for Respondent: Ex parte.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Ex parte for Respondent: Ex parte.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Ex parte for Respondent: Ex parte.
- Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Sh.Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Sh.Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Sh.Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Ad vbcate‑on‑Record for Respondents
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- M.Parvez Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh.Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (both absent) for Respondent.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- M.Parvez Akhtar, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh.Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (both absent) for Respondent.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Syed Ali Raza, Advocate Supreme Court, Raja Abdur Razaq, Advocate‑on‑Record (both absent) for Respondent.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant.
- Advocate‑on‑Record (both absent) for Respondent.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab. Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Sh.Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑‑Record for Respondent‑
- Riaz Ahmad, . Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Qadri Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellants.
- Sh.Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondents.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab Advocate, Ijaz Ali, Advocate‑on‑Record for Appellant,
- Sh.Abdul Karim, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No. 1.
- Ex parte for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3'. Ex parte.
- Date of hearing: 8th April, 1975.
- Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab,
- Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh.Abdul Karim
- 3. Having once challenged the judgment of the High Court, it appears that the Provincial Government had a second thought and revising its previous policy issued a fresh policy letter No.1488‑71/1217‑CL‑III, dated the 26th of April, 1971, whereby regardless of the time of expiry of the lease all allottees of State land under Grow More Food Scheme were offered the choice of acquiring proprietary rights subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the grant. It is in view of this decision of the Provincial Government that the Assistant Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the Provincial Government does not contest the appeals filed by the lessees. For the same reason he seeks permission to withdraw the appeals filed by the Government or the Board of Revenue.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgments and orders of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated the 15th of July, 1966, in Writ Petitions Nos. 1284/1964, 1233/1965, 307/1865, 221/1964, 462/1965, 2009/1964, 2/1965. 4/1965, dated the 5th of February, 1968, in R.S.A.No.103/1968, and dated the 26th of July, 1968, passed in Writ Petitions Nos. 658/1964, 1059/1964, 1060/1964, 1061/1964, 1062/1964, 1441/1964, 1442/1964, 1443/1964, 714/1966, 1746/1966, 1780/1967, 1840/1967, 58/1968, 298/1968, 1303/1964, 363/1966 and 1973/1965). ‑‑‑Government of Punjab Notification No.1488‑71/1217‑CL‑III, dated 26‑4‑1971‑‑Regardless of time of expiry of lease all allottees of State land under Grow More Food Scheme had choice of acquiring proprietary rights subject to fulfillment of terms and conditions of grant. Civil Appeal No.243 of 1969 Civil Appeal No.117 of 1970 Civil Appeal No.118 of 1970 Civil Appeal No.120 of 1970 : Civil Appeal No.122 of 1970 Civil Appeal No.124 of 1970 Civil Appeal No.125 of 1970 Civil Appeal No.128 of 1970. Respondents 3 to 8 : Deleted. Civil Appeals Nos.265 to 267 of 1970 Respondent in person (in C . A . No. 265 of 1970). Respondent No.l in person (in C . A . No.266 of 19701 Respondent No.2;Ex‑parte(in C.A.No.266/1970). Respondent in person (in C . A . No. 267 of 1970). Civil Appeal No.50 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.51 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.52 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.53 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.54 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.55 of 1971 Riaz Ahmad, Assistant Advocate‑General, Punjab, Iqbal Kaukab, Civil Appeal No.56 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.57 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.58 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.59 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.60 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.61 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.62 of 1971 Ch. Azimuddin, Advocate Supreme Court, Sh.Abdul Karim Civil Appeal No.63 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.64 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.65 of 1971 Civil Appeal No.66 of 1971
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL CHEEMA, J.‑‑These 28 Civil Appeals are connected matters having a common background and involving identical questions. They are disposed of by a consolidated short order, the controversy having been cut short owing to a concession made on behalf of the Government of the Punjab. Nine of‑these appeals were filed by private persons either against the defunct‑Province of West Pakistan or the Board of Revenue while the rest were filed by the Provincial Government and the Board of Revenue
2. The short background of the cases is that in order to meet food shortage and give an impetus to food production in the country sometime in 1955‑56 the Provincial Government framed a scheme known as the Grow More Food Scheme under which all available plots of State land in colony districts were leased out for self‑cultivation to various persons initially for a period of five years. It was later decided to offer to the lessees having small holdings the option to acquire proprietary rights in their tenancies by means of private treaty, subject to the two‑fold condition that the lease should have expired before 1961 and the land should not fall within five miles' radius from a Mandi Town or a Municipality. It appears that some lessees who would, otherwise, have been eligible for acquisition of proprietary rights were inevitably prevented from purchasing the land for no fault of theirs, inasmuch as they could not get vacant possession of the land immediately after the order of allotment in their favour in Rabi 1956 and were thus hit by the condition, apparently having no reasonable basis for its prescription, that their lease should not extend beyond 1961. Being thus denied "the concession to purchase" the land some of them having unsuccessfully approached the Revenue Authorities in the first instance invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Their Writ Petition No.684 of 1960 was dismissed by a D . B . of the former High Court of West Pakistan vide order, dated 15‑7‑1966. Eight of these appeals have arisen out of this judgment. Subsequently, however, similar Writ Petition No.658 of 1966 filed by some other lessees under the Grow More Food Scheme, who were likewise denied the concession to purchase the land was listed before another Bench of the same High Court which disagreeing with the earlier decision accepted the writ petition vide order, dated 26‑7‑1968 reported as Muhammad Ashraf v. Board of Revenue P L D 1968 Lah. 1155. It was held that the offer of the "concession of sale", made by the Government vide letter, dated 28‑6‑1962 issued by the Board of Revenue was available to the petitioners notwithstanding the fact that the terminus a quo of the lease in their case was subsequent to Rabi 1956. The Province of West Pakistan in Civil Appeals Nos. 265 challenged this judgment to 267 of 1971 and by the Board of Revenue in Civil Appeals Nos. 50 to 66 of 1971.
3. Having once challenged the judgment of the High Court, it appears that the Provincial Government had a second thought and revising its previous policy issued a fresh policy letter No.1488‑71/1217‑CL‑III, dated the 26th of April, 1971, whereby regardless of the time of expiry of the lease all allottees of State land under Grow More Food Scheme were offered the choice of acquiring proprietary rights subject to fulfillment of the terms and conditions of the grant. It is in view of this decision of the Provincial Government that the Assistant Advocate‑General appearing on behalf of the Provincial Government does not contest the appeals filed by the lessees. For the same reason he seeks permission to withdraw the appeals filed by the Government or the Board of Revenue.
4. In view of the above position, appeals mentioned at Serial Nos. (1) to (8) are allowed while appeals at Serial Nos. (9) to (28) are dismissed as having been withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. M . Z . M . Order accordingly.