Case Details

Citation(s)
1983 SLG 189 1983 SLD 189 1983 SCMR 153
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 443 of 1976, decision dated: 13-10-1981.(On appeal from the judgment dated 5 4 76 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in Writ Petition No. 18 of 1976)
KARAM ELAHEE CHAUHAN AND NASIM HASAN SHAH, JJ
Mian Saeed ur Rehman Farrukh, Advocate Supreme Court and Sh. Salah-ud-Din, Advocate on-Record for Petitioners. Nemo for
Respondent No. 1.Malik Allah Wasaya, Advocate Supreme Court and M. A. Qadri, Advocate on-Record for
Respondent No. 2

ABDUL KARIM AND OTHERS

VS

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER

Law:

Section:

Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)---Ss. 7 & 10 and Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Leave to appeal Order of Collector not challenged before Revenue Authorities nor petitioners producing any document to prove that excess area stood allotted in their favour Leave to appeal declined. ORDER NASIM HASAN SHAH, J. This petition is directed against the order dated 5 4 1976 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court dismissing in limine the writ petition (W. P. No. 18/76) filed by the petitioners. The petitioners, who were tenants of the State land and were occupying approximately 11/12 acres each were granted proprietary rights up to the limit of 8 acres each out of the land allotted to them vide order of the Collector dated 9 10 1973 and the remaining 3 or 4 acres held by each, appears to have been available for allotment and some of it was allotted to Respondent No. 2. The order dated 9 10 1973 passed by the Collector was not challenged by way of an appeal or revision before the revenue authorities. However, an application appears to have been submitted after some time to the Board of Revenue for sale of the excess area held by them. This request was not accepted by the Member, Board of Revenue on the ground that under the instructions contained in Memo. No. 1283 70/251 CL V, dated 22 1 1971 the allottees could purchase proprietary rights on average market price provided the excess area did not exceed 10% of the prescribed limit. In the present case the excess area was more than 10% of the prescribed limit of 64 Kanals. Hence it could not be sold to the petitioners at the average…
🔒
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