Find a Lawyer

Revision No. 1770 of 1963‑64, decided on 20th October 1964, District Montgomery.

Ss. 4, 24 & 27‑Allotment of State land under Notification No. 837‑C of 1‑3‑1933 (as amended subsequently)‑Scheduled tenancy within meaning of S. 4‑Cancellation of allotment-- Rectification of breach of conditions‑Application of S. 24 excluded by virtue of S. 27.

-------

---‑Allottee failing to perform service for which allotment was made‑Order of cancellation of allotment maintained.

Zamir Ahmad for Petitioner.

Jaffar Hussain for Respondents.

Allah Sher (sic) and Sher Muhammad who are brothers, were allotted sometime ago ihatas Nos. 126 and 79 respectively in Chak 'No. 2/10‑L, District Montgomery as mueens. Recently there were complaints against them by a large number of proprietors that they failed to perform service and indulged in lawlessness. The Collector called them to the office, heard their side of the case, recorded statements from them and cancelled the allotments. Later he allotted these ihatas to others. The Additional Commissioner rejected the appeals. Hence the present Revision Petitions Nos. 1770 and 1771. I have heard petitioners' Advocate and the Advocate of the respondent allottees.

2. The first point urged before me is that the petitioner were not given an opportunity to explain their case. I find that they were given this opportunity by the Collector as well as the Additional Commissioner. One of the petitioner in fact stated before the Collector that he worked outside the village because of better wages. This point does not help him.

3. The second point urged before me is that an opportunity should have been given under the proviso to section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act to rectify the breach of conditions and that the failure to give this opportunity rendered the order invalid. The reply is that this allotment was made under Notification No. 837‑C of 1‑3‑1933 as amended subsequently; that according to para. 2 of that Notification this tenancy is a scheduled tenancy within the meaning of section 4 and that the application of section 24 has been excluded by virtue of section 27 of the Act.

4. There is sufficient evidence and there is an admission that the applicants did not perform the service for which the allotments had been made.

5. The order of cancellation is correct and the two revision petitions are dismissed.

6. Announced in the open Court.

S. Q. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.