Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition No. 9 of 1981, decided on 7th June, 1981.
(On appeal from the judgment dated 29‑9‑1980 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore, in Writ Petition No. 374 of 1975).
---Paras. 10 & 15‑Scrutiny of allotments of land to Government servants‑Acquisition by declarant though land standing in name of his sons‑No such finding given by Land Commission Authorities‑Land purchased about five years before target date and then gifted away to other persons‑Resumption of such land by Land Commission Authorities‑Held, not sustainable for being without lawful authority.
Ch. M: Z. Khalil, Advocate Supreme Court for Petitioners.
Date of hearing : 7th June, 1981.
The respondent, Ch. Ghulam Rasool; is a civil servant within the meaning of paragraph 15 of M. L. R. 115. He was required under the said Regulation to file a declaration of his holdings, which he did. Before the Deputy Land Commissioner a dispute arose with respect to an area measuring 437 kanals situate in village Mohammadpur, Gumwala. The background of this dispute was that this area was purchased by Ghulam Ahmad, a brother of respondent No. 1 on 31‑10‑1954, the said. Ghulam Ahmad, who was issueless, gifted the said land to respondents 2, 3, who are sons of respondent No. 1, on 22‑3‑1963. In 1965, the said two respondents got their land exchanged with the land of their maternal uncle in village Rajanpur I and Rajanpur II. On the enforcement of the Land Reforms Regulation [M. L. R. 115], the respondent No. 1 mentioned the gift, referred to above made by Ghulam Ahmad, in favour of his two sons in his declaration. The Deputy Land Commissioner vide his order dated 28‑5‑1972 treated the gift as coming under the mischief of paragraph 10 of the Land Reforms Regulation and ‑resumed his excess land. An appeal by the respondent failed on 29‑6‑1972 before the Land Commissioner. A Revi sion petition was also rejected on 25‑4‑1973 by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner. The further revision petition to the Federal Land Com mission also failed and was rejected by the Chairman Federal Land Commis sion vide his order dated 19‑12‑1973. The respondent, therefore, filed a writ petition in the Lahore High Court on 26‑1‑1975.
Before the High Court, the contention was that the land in dispute was purchased in October, 1954; and could not be a subject‑matter of scrutiny under para. 10 as the target date therein was the 1st of January, 1959. It was further submitted that there was no finding by any of the lower authorities that respondent No. 1 had purchased the land in dispute in the year 1954 Benami m the name of Ghulam Ahmad or for his sons respond dents 2, 3. The learned Judges of the Lahore High Court after reproducing the provisions of para, 10 of the Regulation observed that the terms thereon show that the acquisition should be by a declarants though it may stand in the name of his sons. Consequently, the finding had to be given by the Land Commission authorities that it was, in fact, an acquisition by respon dent No. 1 though the sale was shown in the name of Ghulam Ahmad, who subsequently gifted it to respondents 2, 3.
As there was no such finding and even the purchase was made about five years before the target date 1‑1‑1959, the impugned orders could not be sustained. They were, accordingly, declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Mr. Karamat Nazir Bhandari, learned counsel for the petitioners, bad really no answer to these findings. He, however, drew our attention to para. 4 of the order of the Federal and Commission at page 37 of the record. We have gone through the observations contained in the said para. and are satisfied that they do not deal with the crucial point, namely, whether respondent No. 1 had acquired the area Benami and whether the M: L. R. 115 could extend to a transaction made in 1954 when the further limit to which it could extend was 1‑1‑1959.
This petition is without force and is, accordingly, dismissed hereby.
Petition dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer