Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Revision No. 100 of 1962‑63, decided on 27th May 1963, District Montgomery.
para. 2 (c) (ii)‑Person cultivating more than five acres of land‑Not eligible for grant under Para. 2 (c) (ii).
---‑Case cannot be opened on fresh grounds contro verting facts at review stage.
S. 16‑Benefit of Proviso to S.16 does not apply to case of lessee under Resettlement of Ejected and Landless Tenants Scheme, 1958.
M. S. Maqar for Petitioner.
The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show in what way this review lies bearing in mind the interpretation of section 8 of the B. O. R. Act as contained in my learned brother, Mr. Abbasi's ruling reported in P L D 1961 P. (Rev.) 26, which he has followed the Supreme Court Ruling per Mr. Justice Muhammad Sharif, reported in P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 201, 205.
2. On merits also the petitioner had originally argued that he should not be penalised on account of adverse entries in canal khataunis. I got the revenue records scrutinised and it was established that the petitioner was cultivating more than five acres of land, even according to the khasra girdawari from 1956‑57 onwards and as such was ineligible for the grant under paragraph 2 (c) (ii) of the 1958 Ejected Tenants' Scheme. The petitioner has now for the first time alleged at the review stage that the khasra girdawari entries also ought not to be believed because the petitioner has several brothers and members of family who were cultivating land jointly and the patwari entered his name wrongly on the ground that he was the eldest. I am afraid the case cannot be opened up on fresh grounds controverting facts at the review stage.
3. The last point argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the benefit of the proviso to section 16 of the Colonisation of Government Lands Act, 1912, should be allowed to his client as he has been in possession for over 3 years. I have examined this legal point in a number of other cases of leases under the Ejected Tenants' Scheme at length, and have tendered briefly on it, in my ruling reported in P L D 1962 W. P. (Rev.) 122 at page 125. The conclusion I have arrived at that since the leases under this Scheme were annual and were renewed from year to year subject to the lease not being ineligible on account of having cultivated five acres or more or having been allowed three acres or more under Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, the proviso to section 16, cannot insure to the petitioners benefit. I have reconsidered the position. In my opinion, so long as the annual leases under the Ejected Tenants Scheme continued and the Scheme was not closed, the ineligible clauses would continue to govern the leases. After the Scheme was closed under Government letter No. COL‑8/24‑57 (4167), dated 8th October 1960. The period of three years under the proviso to section 16 of the Act Colony would begin with the result that after 8th October 1963 lessees entitled under the Ejected Tenants' Scheme will enjoy protection under the aforesaid provision.
4. There is, therefore, no force in any of the grounds of review, which is rejected in limine.
K. M. A. Petition rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer