Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 789 of 1981, decided on 28th September, 1981

‑‑S. 30 read with Letter No. 3138‑75/7578/TH. IE, dated 28th November, 1975‑Resumption of land‑Petitioner depositing a certain sum but not thereafter paying instalments by due dates Petitioner failing to pay balance in two instalments as directed by Commissioner‑Respondent's land, held, rightly resumed land in circumstances of case.

Sardar Muhammad Rafiq Khan for Petitioner.

This is a petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, whereby Muhammad Sharif petitioner wants this Court to declare that the resumption order dated 26th October, 1976 passed by the respon dent No. 3 and the subsequent orders dated 27th November, and 6th July, 1980 passed by the respondents No. I and 2 to be illegal and without lawful authority and to direct the respondents to restore the possession.

2. The facts giving rise to this petition, as stated in the petition itself, are that Khaira Khan deceased, father of the petitioner, participated in the auction of lot No. 2 situated in Chak No. 87/TDA, Tehsil Leiah, under Sale Scheme and purchased the same under the terms and conditions laid down in the schedule. Khaira Khan deposited 1/6th of the auction price at the spot, got the possession, got bushes removed and brought the land under cultivation It is further stated that payment of instalments was to commence after the lapse of 2 years from the date of leveling of the land to be done by the respondent No. 3. It has been asserted that the leveling was not done in spite of request and instead of performing his part, the respondent No. 3 on 26th October, 1976 ordered the resumption of the land in question without assigning any reason. The petitioner filed an appeal against that order which was dismissed. The petitioner went in revision that too was dismissed by respondent No. 1 vide order dated 27th November, 1980. Hence this writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner contends that (i) Thai Development Authority did not give any show‑cause notice and even otherwise respondent No. 3 was not competent to demand the instalments without levelling the land; (ii) that there had been no violation of the Sale Scheme; (iii) that in view of letter No. 3038‑75/7578/That I. E., Board of Revenue, Punjab, Lahore, dated 28th November, 1975, the petitioner is entitled to rebate of Rs. 112 per acre and that the first instal ment was recoverable from 15th January, 1976 without charging any penal interest, and (iv) respondent No. 1 has wrongly observed that the petitioner has not deposited the instalments after 15th January, 1976. The petitioner deposited Rs. 8,000 on 24th February, 1976 and Rs. 3,670 on 15^th February, 1977.

4. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel and gone through the material placed on the record of this petition. So far as the first contention is concerned I find that the order dated 26th October, 1976 (Annex : C') indicates that a notice under section 30 (2) (b) of the Thai Development Act, was issued to Khairan Khan father of the petitioner, so far as the other contentions are concerned, I find that after the deposit of 1/6th the petitioner did not pay the instalments with the result that respondent No. 3, resumed the lot on 26th October, 1976. During the hearing of his appeal, the learned Commissioner asked him to pay 1/3rd of the arrears and the case was adjourned to 15th February, 1977 on which date the petitioner did not produce the challan before the Court and his appeal was dismissed Letter No. 3138‑75/7578/TH. IE, Board of Revenue, Punjab dated 28th November, 1975 (Annex : 'F') indicates that a rebate of Rs. 112 per acre could be allowed to the purchaser of TDA agricultural land under auction/Fixed price Scheme after 1st January, 1960 whose area has not been actually levelled by A.M.O. as per report of A.M.O. available in EACO's Office and on the spot verification by Revenue Officer as per commitment of TDA. This letter shows that even those cases, where the land was not leveled, the instalment was to be recovered from 17th January, 1976 without charging arty penal interest and subsequent instalments by 15th July and 15th January in each year, according to the terms and conditions of the sale. It appears that the petitioner had deposited Rs. 8,000 on 24th February, 1976 but thereafter, did not pay the instalments by due dates. He failed to pay the balance in two instalments by 15th July, 1978 as directed by the Commissioner and thereby failed to clear the arrears. In these circumstances, 1 am of the opinion that the petitioner is not entitled to the discretionary constitutional relief under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981.

This petition is dismissed in limine.

M.Y.H. Petition dismissed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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