Case Details

Citation(s)
1967 SLG 5407 = 1967 SLD 5407 = 1967 PLD 52
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No. 2 of 1963, decided on 15th July 1966.
Presented By: Anwarul Haq and Muhammad Afzal Cheema, JJ
M. Ismail Bhatti for Petitioners.   Altaf Sikandar for
Respondent.

Sardar HABIB ULLAH  KHAYAND OTHERS-Petitioners  

VERSUS

  PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN-Respondent

Law: Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)

Section: 15, 8c, 36

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1962

Section: 2

(a) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), Ss. 15 8c 36-Sale takes place on payment of full purchase money only if' "other" conditions of sale are also fulfilled-Tenant   not       a          hereditary        Lambardar-Sale          of Lambardari land, held, not complete by mere payment of full purchase money-Erroneous       grant    of         Permission      of sale-Government may recall such permission on principle of locus poenitentiae-Such recall or cancellation of permission is in accordance with law-Constitution of Pakistan (1962), Art. 2 not invocable-Declaratory suit not barred under S. 36.   A plain reading of section 15, Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912 clearly shows that before becoming a full owner, a tenant of Government land has to fulfil two conditions, firstly, the full amount of purchase money with interest due has to be paid and secondly, other conditions set forth in the statements of conditions for sale have to be fulfilled. In the instant case, the purchase money had undoubtedly been paid in full, but one of the essential conditions of sale, namely, that the petitioner was not a hereditary Lambardar in the sense that in the majority of the area in his patti proprietary rights had not yet been acquired by the tenants on the relevant date, had not been fulfilled. That being the case, he would still remain a tenant of the land in terms of section 15. Mst. Malap Kaur v. Hakim Singh 28 1 C 441 distinguished.   Government of the Punjab Province v. Malik Harbhaghwan and others 1940 P L R 529; Ibrahim v. Mst. Rajji and others P L D 1956 Lab. 609 and Ham Din v. Muhammad Din P L D 1964 S C 842 not applicable.   Apart from the reasons of the non-fulfillment of the conditions of sale, the Government even otherwise on the principle of locus poenitentiae could withdraw its earlier order. as the execution of the deed of sale in this case had not yet been…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register