Case Details

Citation(s)
1982 SLG 454 1982 SLD 454 1982 SCMR 750
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1038 of 1981, decision dated: 16th; March, 1982. (On appeal from the, judgment, dated 1-11-1981 of the Lahore High Court, Bahawalpur Bench in W. P. 267/81/BWP)
NASIM HASAN SHAH AND M. S. H. QURESHI, JJ
Malik Saeed Hassan, Advocate Supreme Court ; Rao Hamid Mukhtar, Advocate. Supreme Court and Sh. Abdul Karim, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondents.

Raja GHULAM MUHAMMAD AND 93 others

VS

MEMBER, BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE AND 2 OTHERS

Law:

Section:

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)----S. 10-State land, grant of Petitioners alleging to be grantees of land on lease but Department concerned denying and petitioners possession over disputed land factually controverted-High Court in writ jurisdiction refusing to grant any relief for reason of controversial question of fact requiring production of evidence being involved and advising petitioners to approach Court of plenary jurisdiction for relief prayed-Petitioner accordingly approaching Board of Revenue con­sidering such authority to be Court of plenary jurisdiction---Fact of petitioners being in physical possession indirectly supported by some observations made in a note sent by a Departmental authority­ Petitioners approaching Supreme Court and praying for intervention on ground of being entitled to a show-cause notice before being physically ejected and referred to a Martial Law Order in such regard-Held, matter not one to be considered by Supreme Court and respondents hoped to proceed in matter in accordance with law. ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH. J.-The petitioners, who are 94 in number, filed a Writ Petition No. 267/81/BWP alleging that they had been granted state land on lease in Chak No. 30 D. N. B., District Bahawalpur under ten years Temporary Cultivation Scheme in the year 1968. The petitioners further claimed that they had developed the land in dispute by spending a huge amount on its improvement and, therefore, in their writ petition they con­tended that they were entitled to be treated as sitting tenants and further entitled to the extension of the lease for a further period of five years. In response respondent No. 3, in his comments sent to the High Court, submitted that the petitioners had neither been allotted the land in dispute nor issued any allotment orders and the documents relied upon by them were forged. Even their possession over the disputed land was factually controverted. The learned Judge in the High Court, in view of this complete disagree­ment on the facts, observed that as the question, whether the petitioners were ever allotted the land in dispute and that they were in cultivating possession thereof, was…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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