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.
Review No. 53 of 1962‑63, decided on 19th October 1963.
para. 19‑"Untenanted land" ‑ Meaning ‑ Land surrendered or abandoned by tenant‑Not to be regarded as untenanted Cancellation of allotments of land made to tenants‑Matter concerns such tenants and Land Commission‑No other party has any say in such question.
Nematullah Qureshi for Petitioners.
A. G. Akhund for Respondent.
This order will dispose of the following 16 reviews:‑---
(1) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Mahabat (Review No. 53).
(2) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Piyareo (Review No. 55).
(3) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Muhammad (Review No. 56)
(4) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Nooru (Review No. 57).
(5) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Khuda Bux (Review No. 58).
(6) Mst. Phati and Mst: Saidan v. Haji (Review No. 59).
(7) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Achar (Review No. 60).
(8) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Alim (Review No. 61).
(9) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Alan (Review No. 62).
(10) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Chaittun (Review No. 63).
(11) Mst. Phati and‑Mst. Saidan v. Ramzan (Review No. 64).
(12) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Obahayo (Review No. 65).
(13) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Hassu (Review No. 66).
(14) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Khan (Review No. 67).
(15) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Dinu (Review No. 68).
(16) Mst. Phati and Mst. Saidan v. Murad (Review No. 69).
These reviews have been filed against my own order, dated the 20th of August 1963, whereby I accepted the revisions preferred by the respondents.
The main question for determination in the cases sought to be reviewed was as to whether the land was tenanted or un tenanted. I have already said that untenanted land means either land under self‑cultivation or land which has not been cultivated at all. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that the land which is surrendered or abandoned by tenants should also be regarded as untenanted. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention because the Land Commission has laid down that land which is abandoned or taken away from a tenant for breach of conditions, shall be auctioned and not utilized under the upgrading scheme which deals with untenanted land. It is quite clear that land which is surrendered or abandoned by a tenant, is not to be regarded as untenanted.
The learned counsel for the petitioners has laid great stress on the conduct of the respondents. The question as to whether their allotments should be cancelled or not, is a matter concerning the respondents and the Land Commission. No other party can have any say in respect of such a question.
The learned counsel for the respondents has admitted that the respondents did sign the applications and give up their khataunis but that was, according to him, done under a mis understanding. This is a question which will be relevant when the question as to whether their allotments be cancelled or not, comes up for consideration. So far as the present reviews are concerned, the only question for determination is whether the cases should be reopened or not. In the circumstances mentioned above, I do not see any justification for reopening the matter at the instance of the petitioners. All the 16 Reviews fail and are rejected hereby.
S. Q. Petitions rejected.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer