| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1982 SLG 172 1982 SLD 172 1982 SCMR 149 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1141 of 1980, decision dated: 11-02-1981.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 31st May, 1980)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, JJ
Taj Muhammad Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate General (Pb.) and Sh. Ijaz Ali Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1141 of 1980, decision dated: 11-02-1981.(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court, dated 31st May, 1980)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND MUSHTAQ HUSSAIN, JJ
Taj Muhammad Langah, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioner. Tanvir Ahmad, Assistant Advocate General (Pb.) and Sh. Ijaz Ali Advocate-on-Record for
Respondents.
IMAM BAKHSH
VS
THE COLLECTOR AND OTHERS
Law:
Section:
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)--- S. 24-Resumption of land-Petitioner not cultivating land for a long period and failing to fulfill requisite condition and breach becoming unrectifiable-Resumption of land by Collector, held, needs no interference in circumstances. ORDER KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN, J.-The land from the name of the petitioner was resumed on account of his not having complied with the terms of lease, in neither bringing the requisite area under cultivation and nor paying the lagan. Having failed at department levels, the petitioner filed a constitutional petition being W. P. 2565/80 which was heard alongwith similar other cases and was dismissed by the High Court vide its order, dated 31-5-1980. The petitioner has come up in a petition for leave to appeal against the same to this Court. 2. The first point argued by the learned counsel was that no notice in terms of the conditions of lease had been served on his client and therefore the resumption without the aforesaid was without lawful authority. The contention has no merit. All the colonization authorities attended to this Matter and held that the notice or notice were duly issued and served on the petitioner. The same was the finding of the High Court who found nothing to disagree with the departmental authorities on the subject. The point raised being essentially of fact cannot be taken exception to before us especially when it suffers from no omission or misreading of evidence. 3. The next point argued was, that under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, V of 1912, the land cannot be resumed in case of a rectifiable breach unless the defaulter is given first opportunity to rectify the alleged breach and he fails to do the needful. It was…
Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492