Case Details

Citation(s)
1961 SLG 1940 1961 SLD 1940 = 1961 PLD 83
West Pakistan
Revision No. 130 of 1958-59, decided on 14th July 1960, District Hyderabad
Presented By: M. W. Abbasi, Member, Board of Revenue

Mir TAJ MUHAMMAD  

VERSUS

  THE STATE

Law:

Section:

Grant-Cancellation of grant on -default of payment of installments-Notice not necessary-Cancellation automatically follows.   ORDER   This is a remokal fine case which was remanded to the Additional Deputy Commissioner and the Revenue Officer, Barrage, under my order dated 5-12-1959.1 have perused the reports of the two officers dated 16-2-1960 and 8-4-1960, respectively. The question of automatic cancellation of a grant on default in payment of installments has been fully gone into and it is quite clear to me now that the Standing Instruction No. 10 (A) entitled "Cancellation Policy" is not an accurate summary of the relevant Orders and Resolutions of the old Sind Government. The Revenue Officer has, for example, now submitted a copy of Government Resolution, R. D. No. 1204-F/46, dated the 18th November 1947, which in its paragraph 2 clearly lays down that "if any installment is not paid by the due date, it results in automatic cancellation of the grant . . . . ". Te cancellation order is to be given effect to from the 15th June of the following year, but the cancellation is to be without doubt immediate and automatic. From another Government Order, No. R-2735-E(A)15-1-1941, submitted bay the offence and placed on the file ill appears that the question whether a final notice must issue to the defaulter or not has been ultimately left to the Revenue Officer' s discretion and that it is not considered a necessary formality.   These two letters of the old Sind Government have not been adequately summarized in the Standing Instruction No. 10 (A), but they clearly lay down the basis of action by the Revenue Department of the Sind Government. They also follow the broad outlines of Condition No. 4 of the Conditions on which full-rate grants are made. I, therefore, find that the final notice was not necessary, that the cancellation automatically followed default in the payment of the instilment of December 1946 and that) the petitioner was liable to remokal fine for his continued use of the grant to his advantage from 1947-48 down to 1953-54. His…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register