Resumption of land

2026 CLC 223 BOARD-OF-REVENUE-PUNJAB Judicial Precedent

Ss. 32 & 34State landAllotment, cancellation ofOriginal allotee passing occupancy to sub-tenantsLocus standiScopeResumption of landScope

Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue) resumed the state land in favour of the state imposing tawan against the occupants of the disputed land declaring their occupancy illegal

Ejected occupants (sub-tenants of original allottee of the disputed land) assailed the said order by preferring appeal before the Additional Commissioner (Revenue)emphasizing upon implementation of a previous order of District Court having been passed in their favour about 35 years ago; the appeal was accepted in favour of ejected occupants (respondents)

Validity

Record revealed that the allotment of the disputed land was cancelled from the name of original allottee as he had secured double allotment of land

The lease period of the disputed land expired in 1980, and the same was not further extended

Therefore, the original allottee had no locus standi to appoint respondents as sub-tenants of the disputed land, as he could not retain the said land, and could not sub-let the same

Moreover, the respondents could not provide order of any competent authority labeling them as sub-tenants or allottees of the land in question; rather, repeated orders of the revenue authorities were passed against them

Respondents only emphasized upon implementation of a previous order of District Court having been passed 35 years ago without appreciating the non-disputed facts that the same could not be implemented specially when the (respondents') execution decree was dismissed and the same was never challenged

Moreover, the High Court twice remanded the case to district authorities without ordering to implement the said order passed by District Court and the revenue authorities gave concrete plausible and legal justifications in favour of resumption of the state land which could not be rebutted by the respondents

The Additional Commissioner (Revenue) by ignoring all said facts, instead of issuing order on merits, accepted the appeal against the facts and record, which was highly questionable and illegal

Thus, the impugned order was not sustainable in the eyes of law

Member -Board of Revenue set-aside the impugned order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner (Revenue) while the order passed by the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Revenue)was upheld

Revision petition, filed by State / District Collector , having legal force and merit, was accepted.

2025 CLC 434 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 42 & 54Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), Ss. 10, 24 & 30 (2)Suit for declaration and injunctionConfirmation of proprietary rights and registration of conveyance deedResumption of landPrinciple

Petitioner/plaintiff claimed to be owner of suit land having property rights issued in his favour but authorities illegally passed resumption order

Trial Court and Lower Appellate Court concurrently decided suit and appeal against petitioner/plaintiff

Validity

Once sale price was deposited and possession was handed over to allottees by Collector, no other Revenue Authorities, even superior to the Collector, could intervene to reverse Collector's decision

If allotment was cancelled by Revenue Appellate Court, Civil Court had jurisdiction to set aside such cancellation, especially if it was found to be in violation of terms of sale or the provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Board of Revenue was not equipped with any authority even to cancel allotment in favour of petitioner/plaintiff, once the price was received and sale deed had been executed

Where transferee had conveyed land to a bona fide purchaser, the power to resume land, for which proprietary rights had already been granted, could not be exercised

After confirmation of proprietary rights and registration of conveyance deed, allottee would become absolute owner of the land

High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction set aside concurrent judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below

Revision was allowed, in circumstances.

2018 CLC 166 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Regln. 115Resumption of landApplication for allotment of resumed land by landless tenantsLandless tenant, right of

Authorities were aggrieved of order passed by Federal Land Commission whereby applications of respondents (who were landless tenants) were accepted

Validity

High Court had not found any illegality in the said order rather same was a step for accomplishment of object and purpose of Land Reforms Programme for which land in excess of determined ceiling was resumed to distribute to sitting landless tenants

Landless tenants were entitled for allotment since resumption of land under Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 and Land Reforms Act, 1977 and their right for allotment subsisted by operation of law as laws were still in field, and required no scheme by Provincial Government for distribution of such resumed land

Federal Land Commission had correctly set aside order passed by Deputy Land Commissioner

Land resumed, in the present case, was not freshly resumed from original landowner but it was resumed only with the aim, object and purpose to allot/ donate the same to sitting landless tenants which was the purpose of constituting the Land Reforms Commission and on account of inaction of Federal Land Reforms Commission from the date of resumption same was not allotted to the sitting tenants as fixed by the Supreme Court in the case of Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner PLD 1990 SC 99

Cutoff date (23-03-1990) did not create any hurdle for allotment of land to landless sitting tenants

High Court maintained order passed by Federal Land Commission and declined interference

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2015 CLC 366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionResumption of landProcedure

Allotment of land in question was cancelled as it fell within prohibited zone and alternate land was allotted to predecessor-in-interest of respondent

Revenue authorities cancelled alternate allotment and Board of Revenue in exercise of revisional jurisdiction restored lease subject to deposit of penalty of Rs.10000/- but respondent did not pay amount of penalty, therefore, revenue authorities auctioned the land

Auction of land was confirmed in favour of petitioner, who had deposited 1/4th of bid money but appellate authority allowed appeal and lease was resumed in favour of respondent

Petitioner contended that respondent was not in cultivating possession of land in question, therefore, it was rightly auctioned by revenue authorities as respondent failed to comply with condition imposed by Board of Revenue

Validity

If respondent or other legal heirs of original lessee did not deposit amount within reasonable time, District Collector could have put up the matter before Board of Revenue for seeking permission for resumption of land after recalling of order regarding restoration of lease in favour of respondent but instead of doing so, he proceeded to put land in question to auction

Order passed by District Collector was not challenged by anybody before any higher forum, however such order which was passed without prior approval of Board of Revenue could not be given legal sanctity

Action of District Collector to put land in question to auction was rightly set at naught by appellate authority

If respondent was not in cultivating possession of land in question, District Collector was fully authorized to take steps for cancellation of lease in his favour and then to resume the same in favour of State but no steps were taken by District Collector, thus his action was not covered under S.30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Act of District Collector to put land in question to auction without adopting proper procedure and without caring for orders passed by Board of Revenue restoring lease in favour of respondent

Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

2013 MLD 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Para. 29Constitution of Pakistan, Arts, 24 & 199Consti-tutional petitionProtection to propertySuo motu power of revision, exercise ofResumption of land

Federal Land Commission in exercise of suo motu powers of revision under Para-29 of Land Reforms Regulations, 1972 (M.L.R. 115), declared alienation of land in question by petitioner in favour of her children to be void

Validity

Produce Index Units (PIU) of petitioner were below the ceiling of 12000 PIUs, which fact had been highlighted from the record and the same left no scope for Land Commission to exercise any power of resumption in respect of land in question

At the time of passing of order by Federal Land Commission, the Constitution of Pakistan (1973) had been enforced whereby in Art. 24, it was ensured that no person would be deprived of his property save in accordance with law, which provided for compensation thereof

Order passed by Federal Land Commission was violative of such concept of the Constitution

Genuine transaction of sale by petitioner in favour of her minor children was effected and incorporated in revenue record, bona fides of which transaction was accepted by authorities

Order passed by Federal Land Commission which was not based upon legally admissible evidence duly collected by authorities was therefore, illegality passed and was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Petition was allowed in circumstances.

2013 CLC 1 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 30(2)Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199Constitutional petitionResumption of landFraud or misrepresentation"Condemned unheard", principle ofApplicability

Grievance of petitioners was that authorities had cancelled allotment of land in question alleging that the same was allotted with fraud and misrepresentation

Validity

None of the parties alleged fraud in the matter and the question was taken note of by Member Board of Revenue himself

Member did not lack jurisdiction to examine question of fraud and in case he was satisfied that fraud had been committed, he was required to follow provisions of section 30(2) of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912

Parties were to be confronted and were given reasonable opportunity to defend themselves and thereafter an appropriate order would have been passed

Parties were never confronted with question of fraud and Member, Board of Revenue unilaterally and in isolation considered question of fraud and passed order directing resumption of land in question, as such the same constituted illegality, in exercise of jurisdiction and was fatal to the order

Petitioners as well as respondent were condemned unheard and had been presented with fait accompli without having been given reasonable opportunity to present their point of view

High Court set aside order passed by Board of Revenue resuming land in question and directed to confront petitioners as well as respondent with allegation of fraud, grant them reasonable opportunity of showing cause to present their point of view as envisaged by section 30 (b) and other provisions of Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 and remanded the matter to Board of Revenue, to pass an appropriate order in accordance with law

Petition was allowed accordingly.