Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave; to Appeal No. ‑372 6f ‑1967, decided on 12th October 1967.

(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of West Pakistan, Lahore dated the 19th July 1967, in Writ Petition No. 1341 of 1966).

: S: 17(i) and Colonization of, Government Lands 0'unjab) Act (V of 1912)‑Land held by person, as tenant under colonization .of, Government Lands Punjab) Act, 1912‑Corporation ills a1nder West Pakistan Agricultural. Development Corporation Ordinance ,1961 calling upon person to execute patanama inter alia on condition that at the end of agricultural year he would vacate, land and deliver possession . to Corporation‑Questions : whether. such patanama confiscatory of rights of person under Colonization, of Government Lands.(Punjab)Act,1912 and whether imposing condition, that at the end of the agricultural year person would vacate land, repugnant to S. 17 (i) of West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961‑Special Leave to Appeal granted by Supreme, Court to consider question.

Hafeezur Rahman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Ejaz Ahmad Khan, Attorney for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 12th October 1967.

‑The dispute is in regard to fifty acres of State land situated in the Ghazi Khan held by the petitioner as a tenant under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912. In 1963, the Governor of West Pakistan in exercise of the powers conferred ,by .section. 23 of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961, declared. the area commanded by the Taunsa Barrage which includes the land in dispute to be, a project area and under section 25 of the Ordinance transferred its management to the Agricultural Development Corporation:. Thereafter the Corporation required the petitioner to execute a Patanama inter alia on the condition that at the end of the agricultural year he will vacate the land and deliver its possession to the Corpora tion. The‑petitioner considered the said condition as confiscatory of his vested rights in the land and declined to execute the Patanama. In consequence the Chief Superintendent of the Corporation purporting to act under section 17 (3) of the Ordinance issued orders for the ejectment of the petitioner against which he moved the High. Court under Article 98 of the Constitution among others on the ground that section 17 (3) was not applicable to his case. The High Court rejected the writ petition by holding that the order for‑ the ejectment of the petitioner was made by the Corporation ‑ in exercise of its lawful authority under section 17 (f) and 17 (ii) of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation. Ordinance, 1961.

By this petition leave to appeal is asked for on the following grounds;

(i) No Regulation as contemplated by section 17 (i) prescribing the terms and conditions on which persons who at the com mencement of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Cor poration. Ordinance, 1961, were in possession are to continue in possession has been framed by the Agricultural development Corporation. The terms and conditions incorporated in the Patanama which the petitioner refused to sign were therefore not applicable to his case.

(ii) The condition that at the end of the agricultural yea the petitioner would vacate the land was repugnant to section 17 (i) which contemplates terms and conditions on which persons in possession at the commencement of the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961, are to continue in possession and

(iii) The Patanama was confiscator of the vested rights of the petitioner under the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, and void to that extent.

The petition raises important questions of law which require consideration. We grant leave to appeal. Security in the sum of Rs. 1,000. Status quo to be maintained.

Leave granted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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