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. 163 of 1958‑59, decided on 9th September 1959.
, paras., 8 & 15‑Petitioner claiming in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II retention of land jointly owned by them and others ‑ No joint agreement produced‑Request for retention of additional area, held, rightly rejected.
para. 15 -Permission to make up permissible limits from other area‑Petitioner omitting to give alternative choice in ,Form LC‑II but making oral request to that effect‑Rejection of request resulting in undue hardship‑Petitioner allowed to retain area permissible under Regulation out of land owned by them.
Abdullah Channa for Petitioner.
This order will dispose of the following two revisions :‑
(1) Aziz Ullah v. State (Revision No. 163).
(2) Aziz Ullah v. State (Revision No. 158).
These two revisions have been filed against orders, dated the 29th of June 1959 passed by Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against orders passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad who had rejected their request for getting their full entitlement of 36,000 units from land jointly owned by the petitioners and their nephews and sisters.
The facts of the case are that the petitioners filed Forms LC‑I and LC‑II. They claimed that the area owned by them as well as some additional area belonging to their relatives should be allowed to be retained by them. The Deputy Land Commis sioner allowed them to retain such area as was owned by them but rejected the request of the. petitioners in respect .of the additional area, on the ground that it did not belong to them. The petitioners went in appeal to the Land Commissioner who dismissed their appeals. Hence these two revisions.
I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. There was no joint agreement placed before the Deputy Land Com missioner which would have shown that the other co‑sharers had agreed to the petitioners getting the area which was not owned by them. Their request for area other than their own was, therefore, rightly rejected.
It has been contended before me that the petitioners also requested that, if their request for the area which was not their own, was rejected, they might be allowed to make up the permis sible limits from other area owned by them. They did not however, give alternative choice in Form LC‑II. This request was made orally to the Deputy Land Commissioner which he did not agree. Technically, it would be justified to reject such a request when no alternative choice was given in Form LC‑II. This, however, would be an undue hardship. The petitioners should, therefore, be allowed to retain such area as is permissible under the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 out of the land owned by them (including the land already given to them by the Deputy Land Commissioner). Both the revisions are accepted only to this extent.
S. Q. Revisions accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer