Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: NAZIR AHMAD VS Respondent: STATE
1996 M L D 407
1996 M L D 407
[Board of Revenue Punjab]
Before A. K. Khalid, Member
NAZIR AHMAD‑‑‑Petitioner
Versus
THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent
R. O. R. No. 1817 of 1978‑79, decided on 16th August, 1979.
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912)‑‑‑
‑‑‑‑S.24‑‑‑West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967), SA64‑‑‑Grant of State land to petitioner on ten years' lease‑‑‑Petitioner's application for extension of lease period was rejected by Collector on the ground that terms and conditions of lease were not fulfilled by petitioner and that only part of land was brought under cultivation by him‑‑‑Order of Collector was affirmed in appeal‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Circle Patwari had confirmed statement of petitioner that about 80 per cent. of land had been brought under cultivation by petitioner‑‑‑Petitioner having brought substantial part of land under cultivation with hard labour and expense it would not be fair to deprive him of such land‑‑‑Orders of forums below were set aside by Board of Revenue and land in question was restored to the petitioner.
Mehr Ghulam Ali Mubashar for Petitioner.
Date of hearing: 16th August, 1979.
ORDER
This is a revision petition against the order dated 31‑5‑1979 of Additional Commissioner (Cons.), Sargodha by which he dismissed the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order, dated 18‑1‑1979 of Assistant Commissioner/Collector, Jaranwala, refusing to extend the lease of the petitioner.
2. Briefly, Plot No.3 (16A‑1K‑2M) situated in Chak No.37/GB was on ten years' lease with the petitioner uptil Rabi 1979. After the expiry of lease period, the petitioner applied for extension of his lease. The Assistant Commissioner/Collector, however, rejected the request on the ground that the petitioner had failed to fulfil the condition of the lease vide order dated 18‑1‑1979. The petitioner went up in appeal against this order on the grounds (a) that he was condemned unheard, and (b) that only a part of the land was not cultivated because it was remained submerged in rain waters. The Additional Commissioner dismissed the appeal on 31‑5‑1979. Hence this revision petition.
3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner at length and have also gone through the impugned order. The Circle Patwari who is present in the Court has confirmed that the petitioner has already brought more than 80 % of the land under cultivation. In view of this, it will not be fair to deprive him of the land which he has made cultivable with hard labour and expenses. Consequently I would allow the revision petition, set aside the impugned orders I and restore the land to the petitioner.
A.A./34/Rev Revision accepted