Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 60 of 1982, decided on 27th February, 1982.

(Against the judgment and order of Lahore High Court, Lahore dated 7‑12‑1981 in Writ Petition No. 5719 of 1981).

Land Reforms Act (II of 1977)‑‑

‑‑‑ S. 15‑‑Reserved land‑Allotment of‑Requirement of law being not only cultivation as tenant but also to be shown in revenue records to be in cultivating possession during kharif 1976 and rabi 1975‑76 and petitioner not so recorded in revenue papers‑Petitioner, held, rightly adjudged to be not entitled to allotment of reserved land.

Rashid Murtaza Qureshi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Chaudhry, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

S. Wajid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondents. .

Date of bearing : 27th February, 1982.

‑‑The petitioner claimed benefit of para. 15 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977. He was denied that at all levels in the hierarchy of Land Commission. He filed a constitutional petition but failed. He seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the High Court dated 7‑12‑1981 whereby the constitutional petition was dismissed.

2. The factual basis of the claim of the petitioner was that he had been a cultivating tenant of the resumed land since 1975 and was on the strength of para. 15 entitled to the allotment of the resumed land. The requirement of para. 15 was that not only the person claiming should be a tenant cultivating the land but also that he should be shown in the revenue records to be in cultivating possession of it during Kharif 1976 and Rabi 1975‑76". On scrutiny at all levels and by every authority dealing with the case it was found that the petitioner was not recorded to be in cultivating possession during the crucial crops. The petitioner is not in a position to challenge successfully that finding. Hence he has been rightly adjudged not to be entitled to the allotment of the resumed land. It is, therefore, immaterial whether he owned land or not and whether the respondents were no better entitled.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner wanted to take up two grounds which were new and somewhat contradictory to the case set out by the petitioner at earlier stages. It was contended that the resumed land belonged to Salvation Army or the Church and could not be resumed at all and secondly that the Land Reforms Regulation of 1977 under which the land was resumed was ultra vires for various reasons. It is significant that the petitioner has been hitherto making a claim and basing it on the ground that the resumption being proper and legal, be alone was entitled under para. 15 to get its allotment. There is no special feature in the case which may justify the taking of such grounds for the first time in this Court.

4. We do not find any merit in the petition and the leave to appeal is refused.

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.