Find a Lawyer

Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 1055 of 1981, decided on 24th March, 1982.

(On appeal from the judgment dated 4‑10‑1981 of the Lahore High Court Lahore in Writ Petition No. 4522 of 1980).

----Art. 185(3) read with Colony Notification No. 3215‑79/3973‑C‑II, dated 3rd September 1979, para. 3‑Proprietary rights, purchase of Plea that even if petitioner be held to have been in illicit possession of area in dispute, such land having once been allotted to him although subsequently cancelled, nevertheless petitioner entitled to purchase proprietary rights in land under para. 3 of Colony Instructions neither raised before Revenue authorities nor before High Court‑Held: Revenue authorities or High Court in circumstances not to be blamed Petitioner, how ever, if so advised, may apply to relevant authorities and Court felt no doubt such authorities would dispose of application in accordance with law.

Shahid Hussain Qadri, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Aslam Ch. Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.

Nemo for Respondents.

Date of hearing : 24th March, 1982.

‑Mr. Shahid Hussain Qadri, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of this petition, which is directed against the judg ment dated 4‑10‑1981 passed by a learned Single Judge of the Lahore High Court in Writ Petition No. 4522 of 1980, has submitted that even if the petitioner was in illicit possession of the area in dispute which was, at one time, allotted to him but, subsequently, on 25‑10‑1967, the said allotment was cancelled, he was nevertheless entitled to the purchase of the proprietary rights in the land in question under Colony Notification No. 3215‑79/3973‑C‑II, dated 3rd September, 1979. In this connection, he relies on paragraph 3 thereof which is as under:‑

"3. Eligibility.‑Any person holding State land‑on temporary cultivation lease who is either landless or owner of less than a subsistence holding and has been in continuous cultivating possession of the leased land since before Kharif 1977 may be eligible for the purchase of proprietary rights in such land‑

(i) in the case of a lessee who is landless up to a subsistence holding; and

(ii) in the case of a lessee who is owner of less than a subsistence holding up to that are by which he falls short of a subsistence holding."

It is submitted at this aspect of the case has escaped the notice of the revenue authorities, as well as the High Court.

We observe, however, that this aspect of the case was not raised before the revenue authorities or even before the High Court and, therefore, they cannot be blamed for not considering it.

The petitioner may, if so advised, if he satisfies the conditions of eligibility laid down in the notification aforementioned, apply to the relevant authorities in this connection and we have no doubt that they will dispose of his application in this behalf in accordance with law.

This petition, with these observations, stands disposed of.

Petition disposed of accordingly.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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