Find a Lawyer

Revision Side No. 474 of 1953‑54, decided on 25th June, 1954, District Montgomery.

S. 24‑Tree planting grant‑Grantee defaulting in planting trees‑Before resumption of grant opportunity should be given to grantee to make good his default.

As Government is interested in getting trees planted, if a grantee of a tree planting grant does not maintain an adequate number of trees, steps should be taken to force him to perform his duty properly. He should be given an adequate time for such performance, and if he fails again, he should be deprived of the grant.

In this case the default continued over a period of more than 30 years. The grantee was given an opportunity to make good his default and was put to terms in view of that concession.

Syed Jamil Hussain Rizvi, for Petitioners.

Ch. Nazir Ahmad Khan, for Respondent.

‑The dispute in this case relates to a tree‑planting grant in the Montgomery District. This grant was held by the petitioners till the Collector resumed it from them on the ground that they had not fulfilled the conditions relating to the planting and maintaining the trees along the roadside. The resumption order was passed on 14th June, 1953. The petitioners appealed to the Commis sioner but their appeal was dismissed on account of being time‑barred.

The grant has been in existence for more than 30 years. In 1953, the Collector found that the number of trees standing on the road assigned to the petitioners was not adequate. He, therefore, gave them a notice under section 24 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, arid proceeded to resume the grant.

In my opinion, the breach of the conditions is of a serious character, but the punishment of resumption is very harsh, because the breach has obviously been in existence for many years and the Collectors of the past have overlooked it. Government is interested in getting trees planted and if the grantee does not maintain an adequate number of trees, steps should be taken to force him to perform his duty properly. He should be given an adequate rime for such performance, and if he fails again, he should certainly be deprived of the grant. It does not appear that the process has been as gradual in this case as I have described above.

In the ‑above circumstances, I accept this petition of revision and direct as follows :‑‑

(1) The grantee should be fined Rs. 100 for his failure to maintain the necessary number of trees according to the conditions of his grant.

(2) The grant should be restored to him (i.e., the two petitioners who are sons of the original grantee) but they should pay such compensation to the present allottee (the respondent) as may be fixed by the Collector in respect of tire tree plantation work he has done since the resumed grant was given to him. In fixing the compensation, the Collector can take into account the income which the respondent might have received from the grant.

(3) The petitioners should undertake further tree planta tion work according to such schedule as the Collector may fix. Such schedule should be fixed on basis of faster work than normal in order to punish the petitioners for their past default and to improve the road along which the trees have been planted (I have made clear to the petitioners that it they fail to act according to the schedule prescribed by the Collector, without good cause, their grant will be resumed without giving them any further opportunity).

(Please also see P L D (Rev.) 1955 Punjab 22)

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.