Case Details

Citation(s)
1985 SLG 274 1985 SLD 274 1985 SCMR 610
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No.1300 and 1301 of 1983, decision dated: 13-03-1984. (Against the judgment of Lahore High Court, dated 15-10-1983 in Writ Petitions Nos. 7 and 8 of 1983)
NASIM HASAN SHAH AND SHAFIUR RAHMAN, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

NASIM HUSSAIN and others

VS

ILAM DIN and others

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 185(3)

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 41,114

Constitution of Pakistan (1973)---Art. 185(3)--Punjab Tenancy (Amendment) Act(VII of 1952)-- Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), Ss. 41 & 114-Extinguishments of tenancies--Occupancy tenants paying share of produce to landlord-­ Revenue Authorities, as upheld by High Court, rightly holding that such category of occupancy tenants were entitled to ownership rights of 3/4th of land--Such right, however, existed only upto year 1984-­ Leave to appeal refused. ORDER SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.-- The petitioners, the recorded transferees from owners of agricultural land, seek leave to appeal against the judgment of the Lahore High Court dated 15-10-1983 whereby on two constitutional petitions filed by the erstwhile occupancy tenants a decision was given whereby the orders of the Board of Revenue dated 14-12-1982 was set aside. 2. The respondent-writ petitioners were at one time the recorded occupancy tenants of the petitioners paying the share of the produce. They claimed that on the promulgation of Punjab Tenancy Amendment Act, 1952 the occupancies tenancies were extinguished and the tenants became the owners proportionate to their share of the produce. Their contention that they were the occupancy tenants and were paying the share of the produce to the landlord was upheld but it was held by the Revenue authorities that such a right could be exercised by them only upto the year 1954. As they had failed to take the benefit of the law in time and did not try to get the land transferred in their name they had lost the right. 3. It was this bar of limitation imposed in the revenue hierarchy, which was upset by the High Court in the constitutional petitions holding that by the operation of the law itself they had become the owners of the land proportionate to their share of the produce, and there was no limit imposed on their entitlement. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner has voiced two grievance against the judgment of the High Court. The first is that the exact share of the produce payable to the landlord remained undetermined and for determining that a…
🔒
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