Pakistan Case Lawโ† Search
PLD 1989 Revenue 2

MUHAMMAD SHARIF vs THE ST A TE

CitationPLD 1989 Revenue 2
CourtBoard of Revenue, Punjab
Case No.R.O.R. No,1195 of 1987
Date1988-07-14
Judge(s)Asad Ali Shah
ResultPetition accepted

ORDER

' This is a revision petition against the order of Commissioner, Dera Ghazi Khan Division dated 22-2- 1987 whereby he upheld the order of EACO/Collector, Layyah dated 23-8-1986 whereby measuring 100 kanals State land in Chak No,87/ML, Tehsil Karor, District Layyah was granted to the petitioner under Notification dated 3-9-1979.

2. I have heard the petitioner through counsel and seen the record. Briefly the position is that the petitioner was originally a lessee for 15 years (1977-86) of 100 Kanals of State land comprising Rect.

No,78/5,6 and 79/1 to 10 in Chak No,87/ML. He applied for its proprietary rights under Notification dated 3-9-1979 and was duly granted the same subject to depositing its price as assessed. By 1986 he had defaulted in payment of these instalments to the tune of Rs,17,142/49 plus interest/penal interest etc. The EACO/Collector visited the site on 8-7-1986 and found the petitioner absent. It was reported that he had sold his lot to Faiz Muhammad and left the chak. Therefore he issued a notice and ordered resumption of lot on 23-8-1986 as ex parte decision. In appeal the Commissioner observed that although absence from the land does not make the petitioner ineligible provided he had cultivated the land but non-payment of installments was a definite breach of condition and therefore upheld the order. Hence this petition.

3. A perusal of Khasra Girdawari indicates that the impugned land was cultivated by the petitioner himself. The impression of learned EACO therefore seems to be at variance with the revenue record. As regards non-payment of dues, this is a rectifiable breach. The petitioner is now willing to pay all over dues. The impugned land is therefore restored provided he clears all the dues including interest and penal interest etc. And pay a fine of Rs,5,000. The case is therefore remanded to AC/Collector who will1verify the possession of the petitioner and restore the allotment on payment of the dues and fine as indicated above.

For educational and research use only โ€” not legal advice. Verify against the official report before relying on it. See our Disclaimer.
DisclaimerยทPrivacyยทTermsยทSearch