Pakistan Case Law← Search
1989 SCMR 1668(2)

BASHIR AHMAD and 2 others vs MEMBER (COLONIES), BOARD OF REVENUE,

Citation1989 SCMR 1668(2)
CourtSupreme Court of Pakistan
Case No.Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No, 781 of 1983
Date1988-11-22
Judge(s)Muhammad Afzal Zullah, Dr. Javed Iqbal
ResultPetition dismissed

ORDER

' JAVID IQBAL, J.--This petition for leave is directed against the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Multan Bench dated 7 March, 1983, whereby writ petition filed by the petitioners was dismissed.

2. Briefly the facts are that the petitioners were granted State land under Bara Scheme for a period of 8 years in 1956 on the terms that if they brought under cultivation atleast 80% of the said land, they could apply for the grant of proprietary rights to the extent of half of the lease holding, the other half to be surrendered to the State. Within the period of tenancy the petitioners failed to bring the requisite area under cultivation. However the period of lease was extended by the Collector but the petitioners again failed to achieve the target. As a result the Collector resumed the land holding that the petitioners were not eligible to retain the land or to the grant of proprietary rights.

These orders were upheld in appeal as swell as in revision. The writ petition whereby these orders were challenged had also been dismissed. Hence the present petition. In the meantime after resumption the land was allotted to respondent No, 5 (Muzaffar Mehdi) and even the proprietary rights had been granted to him. It was submitted by learned counsel that according to the Revenue record it was not correct that the petitioner had not brought under cultivation the requisite area and that therefore the Revenue Authorities were not justified in resuming the land.

However the finding of fact is that the petitioners at the most brought 30% of the land under cultivation although according to the report of the land Reclamation Officer the cultivation was only of 17.69%. Thus they did not fulfil the condition of cultivation of 80% of the land. Since the question of fact has been decided against the petitioners no case is made out for interference. The petition is accordingly dismissed.

For educational and research use only — not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
Disclaimer·Privacy·Terms·Search