Find a Lawyer

Revision Petition No. 20 of 1948‑49, decided on 15th November, 1949 front the order of Commissioner, Multan, dated 14th May, 1949.

, Ss. 7 and 15‑Collector not competent to review the order of his pre decessor without previous sanction of Commissioner.

, S. 24‑Grant under S. 10 could not be cancelled, unless tenant commit ted a breach of conditions of tenancy.

J. D. Qureshi, for the Petitioner.

Ismat Ullah Khan, for the counsel, for the Respondent.

---This is a revision petition against the order of the Commissioner, Multan Division, dated 14th May, 1949, whereby he rejected the appeal of the petitioner and upheld the order of the Collector, dated 10th May, 1948, cancelling the horse‑breeding tenancy allotted to the petitioner. The records show that on 29th November, 1947, the District Remount Officer, Montgomery Area, recommended inter rill s the petitioner for the allotment of a horse‑breeding square vacated by one, Shiv Lal. The Collector (Mr. Abdul Hameed) approved of this recommendation, vide his order, dated 10th January, 1948. On 29th April, 1948, the Colony Assist ant, Montgomery, reported to the Collector that as the petitioner had already got sufficient land in Pakistan, the horse‑breeding tenancy allotted to him should be cancelled. This proposal was agreed to and the Collector (Mr. Hasan Akhtar) ordered the cancellation of the tenancy on 10th May, 1948. An appeal was preferred to the Commissioner against that order who upheld the decision of the Collector.

The learned Counsel for the petitioner has urged that the order of the learned Collector is not maintainable on the following grounds :‑

(a) Mr. Hasan Akhtar was not competent to review the order of his predecessor Mr. Abdul Hameed without previous sanction of the Commis sioner, vide section 7 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab Act read with section 15 of the Land Revenue Act.

(b) Once a grant had been made by virtue of conditions issued by Government under section 110 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab), Act, 1912, the grant could not be cancelled or resumed under section 24 of the Act unless the tenant in possession of land had committed in the opinion of the Collector a breach of the conditions of his tenancy. No such breach has been reported in the present case.

The learned counsel for the respondent stressed that the local officers as agents of Government had throughout been dealing with the case as one of allotment of land to a refugee under the rehabilitation scheme and as the petitioner suppressed certain information as to his holding land in Pakistan, he should be deemed to have committed a breach of conditions of his tenancy within the meaning of section 16 of the Act. It is clear that the grant made was of Crown land for a specific purpose (horse‑breeding) and not of evacuee land. In recommending cancellation of the same the Colony Assistant overlooked the provisions of law referred to in (a) and (b) of the grounds mentioned above and the Collector was thus led to pass an incorrect order. In the circumstances I must accept this application and set aside the order of the Commissioner as well as that of the Collector, with the result that .the grant shall stand allotted to the petitioner.

Announced

K. M. A. Appeal 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.