Find a Lawyer

Review Side No. 250 of 1953‑54, decided on 11th May, 1955, District Jhang.

S. 21 (a)‑Female first tenant‑Collector empowered to nominate successor.

The Collector nominated sons and daughters of the first tenant, a female, as her successors, in preference to collaterals of the original lessee.

Held, that under section 21 (a), Colonization of Govern ment Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), the nomination was equitable and just.

S. 15-- Review by Financial Commissioner of order passed by predecessor in‑office‑Order passed on insufficient evidence without going into revenue records reversed on review.

Said Akbar, for Petitioners.

M. B. Khizar Tamimi, for Respondent.

‑The land in dispute which is Crown property was held on lease by the predecessors of the parties. In 1904‑5 when the Colonisation of Government Lands Act came into force Mst. Bakhan became the first tenant under this Act. After her death the question of inherit ance is contested by her descendants as well as the descendants of the original lessee who was the common ancestor of the parties. The latter contended that as collaterals they were entitled to succeed because the deceased had only a life interest in the property. The Assistant Collector 1st Grade came to a finding in favour of the collaterals but the Collector held that the land was the self‑acquired property of the father of Mst. Bakhan and as such her descendants had a preferen tial right to succeed. On appeal the Commissioner confirmed the order of the Collector. A revision was then filed before my learned predecessor H. A. Majid Financial Commissioner, who held that section 21 of the Colonization of Government Lands Act applied to the case. He, however, did not go into question whether the property was ancestral or self‑acquired and on the grounds of equity gave the inheritance to the reversioners. The decendants of Mst. Bakhan have applied for a review of this order.

The main argument that has been taken up before me is that Mst. Bakhan was in fact and law the first tenant of the land and succession would thus devolve in accordance with the provisions of section 21 (a) of the Colonization of Government Lands Act. On going through the excerpts of revenue records, which have been produced by the respon dents I find that this contention is quite correct. As Mst. Bakhan was the original tenant, it is open to the Collector to nominate a successor in accordance with the provisions of this section. The respondent's counsel has urged that it should be construed that the Collector has exercised this option in favour of the collaterals in view of the finding given by my learned predecessor, but in fact this is not so. If anything the Collector has decided in favour of the sons and daughters of the deceased tenant, which is also in accord with the present legal tenancies and is undoubtedly more equitable and just. I would, therefore, review the order passed by my learned predecessor which was based on insufficient evidence without going into the revenue records and direct that the order passed by the Collector should be restored.

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.