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.
P L D 1984 Karachi 153
Before Nasir Aslam Zahld and Ali Nawaz Budhani, JJ
Mir RASOOL BUX TALPUR--Petitioner
versus
THE OFFICER-ON-SPECIAL DUTY, FEDERAL LAND COMMISSION
AND ANOTHER---Respondents
Constitutional Petition No. D-319 of 1977, decided on 13th January, 1983.
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--
-- Art. 199--Land Reforms Regulations 1972 [M. L. R. 115], paras. 8 & 29-Entitlement to additional area on ground of owning a tractor Tractor not registered in name of petitioner/declarant-Certificate from Assistant Commissioner available on record certifying that petitioner was owner of, tractor-Such certificate not discarded-Mere fact that tractor was not registered in name of petitioner, held, not sufficient to deprive petitioner from benefit under para. 8(2) of Regulation unless it was shown that such certificate was bogus or improperly obtained Petition allowed in circumstances.
Fateh Khan v. Member, Federal Land Commission P L D 1977 Lah. 1100; Member, Federal Land Commission v. Muhammad Ashraf Khan 1978 S C M R 153 and Shafi Muhammad v. Member, Federal Land Commission 1979 C L C 91 rel.
Imam .4l1 Kazi for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of 1earing : l1 th January, 1983.
NAsm
ASLAM ZAHID,
J.-This petition challenges the order dated 23-11-1976
passed by the Officer-on-Special Duty, Federal Land Commission in suo mote Revision under para. 29 of M. L. R. -115. This petition was admitted to regular hearing by order dated 28-7-1977. At the time- of admission, Mr. Imam Ali Kazi, learned counsel for the petitioner had stated- that he was only challenging that part of the impugned order of the Federal Land Commission which relates to the rejection of the petitioner's claim to retain alt Additional area equivalent to 2,000 P.I.Us. on account of owning a tractor. We have heard Mr. Imam Ali Kazi on behalf of the petitioner. No one has appeared on behalf of the respondents.
2. The Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad by his order dated 19-9-1972 decided that the petitioner was entitled to retain an additional area of 2,000 P.I.Us. on account of tractor as was certified by the Assistant Com missioner, Tando. Muhammad Khan. The Officer-on-Special Duty Federal Land Commission, however, by his order dated 23-11-1976 inter alts set aside the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, as regards the tractor concession. The relevant portion of his order is as follows :-
"Regarding the tractor concession, the learned counsel argued that the tractor was purchased by the declarant from Mahfooz Ltd, and was owned by them. He further submitted that the competent authority i.e. Assistant Commissioner duly certified that the declarant was the owner of the tractor, all ibis, the learned counsel argued sufficiently proved the ownership of the . tractor. The tractor was not registered in the name of the declarant nor the learned counsel could produce any satisfactory evidence to prove the ownership of the tractor. I, therefore, held that the Deputy Land Commissioner was not justified in allowing the tractor concession as the ownership of the tractor was not established from the material available on the record."
3. The reason for not accepting the claim of the petitioner relating to the tractor by the Commission was, therefore, that the tractor was not registered in the name of the petitioner and that the petitioner could not produce any satisfactory evidence about the ownership of the tractor. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that just because the tractor was not registered in the name of the petitioner, he could not be deprived of the benefits under para. 8(2) of M. L. R. 115. Learned counsel relied upon the following judgments in support of his arguments :--
(i) P L D 1977 Lab. 1100 ............... Fateh Khan. v. Member, Federal
Land Commission.
(fi) 1978 S C M R 153 ............... Member, Federal Land Com
mission v. Muhammad Ashraf
Khan.
(iii) 1979 C L C 91 ............... Shafi Muhammad v. Member,
Federal Land Commis
sion.
The three reported judgments .cited by learned counsel for the peti tioner support the contention that a declarant cannot be deprived of the benefits under para. 8(2) of M. L. R. 115 solely on the ground that the tracto is not registered in his name. In the instant case there is the certificat of Assistant Commissioner, Tando Muhammad Khan certifying that the petitioner was the owner of the tractor. There is no observation in the order of the Federal Land Commission that this certificate of .the Assistant Commissioner is a bogus certificate or that it was obtained. by improper means. In view of the certificate of the Assistant Commissioner about the owner ship of the tractor which has not been discarded, and the established law that a declarant cannot be deprived of the benefiits under para. 8(2) of M. L. R. 115 only for the reason that the tractor is not registered in his n1me, we are of the view that the order of the Federal Land Commission, to - the extent it relates
to tractor concession is liable
to be set aside,
4. The Constitutional Petition is allowed to- the extent that the order of the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, dated 23-11-1976 is set aside in regard to the tractor concession only. The result is that the part of order of the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad dated 19-9-1972 to the effect that the petitioner is entitled to retain additional area of 2,000 P. I. Us. on account of tractor is reviewed. There will be no order as to costs.
M. B. A. Petition accepted.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer