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. 138 of 1958‑59, decided on 9th September 1959.
, para. 15 --Petitioner, by mistake, showing his land lesser in area in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II‑Deputy Land Commissioner resuming area found in difference‑‑Entire land within permissible limits‑Restora tion to petitioner of resumed area ordered.
This is a revision filed against an order, dated the 13th of July 1959, passed by Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, who rejected an appeal preferred by‑the petitioner against the orders passed by Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, who had directed the resumption of 34 acres and 20 ghuntas of land in spite of the fact that the total area owned by the petitioner including that piece of land was within the permissible limits.
The facts of the case are that the petitioner filed Forms LC‑I and LC‑11 but, by mistake, gave his total area as 1,214 acres and 291 ghuntas instead of 1,249 acres and 10 ghuntas. The Deputy Land Commissioner allowed him to retain the area claimed by him in Form LC‑II but ordered the resumption of the difference amounting to 34 acres and 20 ghuntas. The petitioner went in appeal to the Land Commissioner but the appeal was rejected. Hence this revision.
I have heard the Mukhtar of the petitioner. Out of the total area owned by him, he had made a gift in favour of his four daughters to the extent of 252 acres and 12 ghuntas. He had also made a gift of 112 acres and 31 ghuntas in favour of his mother. The balance he had shown in his Form LC‑II as 849 acres and 26 ghuntas. Actually, it should have been 884 acres and 6 ghuntas. The produce index for the flow type of land in Math (Barrage) Assessment Taluka of Hyderabad District is 40. The petitioner could, therefore, retain 900 acres of land under the Martial Law Regulation No. 64. The total area left, with him after making the gift mentioned above was, therefore, within the permissible limits and no portion thereafter should have been resumed. I, therefore, accept the revision and direct that the area resumed from the petitioner should be restored to him.
S.Q Revision accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer