Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 46 of 1953‑54, decided on 18th May, 1955; District Montgomery.

S. 24‑Should be strictly followed Order resuming grant without giving opportunity to rectify omissions set aside.

The provisions of section 24 Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) should be strictly followed.

Where opportunity to rectify was not given and the grant of land on tree planting conditions was resumed, the order of resumption was set aside and grantee given 6 months in which to rectify his omission to plant and maintain the requisite number of trees even though he had not carried out the conditions of the grant as to planting of trees for about 30 years.

Kh. Abdur Rahim, for Petitioners.

Muhammad Amin Khan, for Respondents.

‑The facts of this case briefly are that the grant of land in dispute 10 kanals in area situated in Chak No. 112/12‑L District Montgomery was made on tree planting conditions in 1921 to the father of the petitioners. It is alleged that the grantee had subsequently acquired occupancy rights though there is no evidence before me to that effect. More than thirty years after the grant was made i.e., 1953 the Collector issued a notice under section 24 of the Colonisation of Government Lands Act to the sons of the original grantee who had by then died, to show cause why the grant should not be resumed as the conditions of the grant in respect of the maintenance of trees, construction of drains etc. was not fulfilled. It is in evidence that the number of trees in existence was only 68) compared to over five hundred which the petitioners should have planted and maintained. The Collector ordered resumption of the grant on 30th September, 1953 and an 10th October, 1953, he allotted it to the respondent, Mr. Nazir Ahmad an Advocate of Montgomery. An appeal was filed before the Commissioner which failed on the ground that it was time -barred. The petitioner has now come up in revision.

The main argument that has been advanced is that the mandatory provisions of section 24 of the Colonisation of Government Lands Act have not been complied with. This section lays down that whenever a breach committed by a grantee is capable of rectification, he shall be given a reason able opportunity not less than one month to put matters right and it is only when he fails to do so that the Collector can proceed to resume the grant. In the present case the Collector did not comply with the mandatory requirements of this section. It is, however, urged for the respondent side that the breach was not capable of rectification. This is obviously not correct though it can be argued that in a case like the one under consideration where the lapse has been in existence over a period of more than twenty five years it would be reasonable to assume that the grantee will not in all probability put matters right even if given an opportunity. Nevertheless it would still constitute non‑compliance with the requirements of law. Besides in a case of this kind where a tenant has held the grant for a period of more than thirty years it would be just and equitable to construe the letter of the law strictly and give an opportunity to the tenant to which as already observed he is entitled under section 24 of the Act. One fact which would have weighed considerably in favour of the petitioners and which has not been proved, is the acquisition of occupancy rights by their father. These rights are granted normally after inspection on the spot and verification to the effect that conditions of the grant are being fulfilled to the satisfaction of the Collector. Unfortu nately there is no material evidence before me on this point.

As a result of the above discussion I would accept the revision petition and pass the following order:‑

(a) The grant made in favour of the respondent, Mr. Nazir Ahmad is cancelled and the petitioners are allowed to continue as grantees under the old terms and conditions.

(b) They are given a period of six months to comply with the conditions of the grant failing which it should be open to the Collector to proceed to resume the grant under the provisions of section 24 of the Act without giving any further opportunity to the Petitioners to rectify the breach.

(c) The Collector shall assess to what compensation is the respondent entitled for having made any improvements in the tenancy by way of planting trees etc. and this compensations shall be paid to him within a period of three months of its assessment failing which the grant shall be liable to resumption.

A. H. Petition accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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