Find a Lawyer

Ss. 3 & 9(4)‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1981), Art. 9 Holding comprising of ownership as well as lease from Colony department under Tube‑well Scheme‑Total holding of declarant Contention that only that land could be resumed which was in excess of ceiling and declarant owned that‑Held, one person could not own or possess land more than ceiling‑Orders of Land Commissioner calculating holding of declarant which he owned as well as possessed by way of lease from Colony department were correct.

(b) Land Reforms Act (II of 1977)‑---

‑‑ S. 9(4)‑Provisional Constitution Order (1 of 1931), Art. 9‑Holding comprising of ownership as well as lease from Colony department under Tube‑well Scheme‑Contention that declarant was entitled to retain some unit for having installed tube‑well and developing land Held, authorities of Colony department could decide about rights of declarant in that regard who could seek remedy before that authority Petitioners could also take plea as regard, that after demise of original lessee i.e. petitioner's predecessor‑in‑interest, petitioner would be entitled to restoration of land under lease because holding of each individually would be within limit.

Muhammad Rafiq Khan Chohan for the State.

ABDUL SHAKURUL SALAM J.

‑Zaka‑ud‑Din Khan, predecessor‑in‑interest of the petitioners was found to be in excess of the prescribed ceiling under the Land Reforms Act, 1977. His holding comprised of ownership as well as lease from the Colony Department of the Government of the Punjab under Tube‑well Scheme. The petitioners agitated before the Land Reform Authorities that the land allotted under the Tube‑well Scheme vesting in the State could not be reckoned in the total holding of the deceased declarant. The Member, Federal Land Commission in the ultimate order dated 17‑11‑1983 held that section 3 of the aforesaid Act provided that no person shall after the commencement of this Act, own or posses land ..................... in excess of one hundred acres of irrigated land or two hundred acres of unirrigated land , therefore, the contention was without force.Hence, this petition.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that under the aforesaid Act only that land cyan be resumed which is in excess of the ceiling and the declarant owns that.

3. The authorities have rejected the contention on the ground that the aforequoted provision debars a person to hold land in excess of the ceiling if the excess is either owned or possessed by the declarant. In the order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Punjab, Lahore, dated 1 d‑6‑1983, reference to section 9(4) had also been made which lays down that "any land surrendered by a person which was in his possession as a lessee or mortgagee shall not vest in Government but shall, subject to the provision of section 3, revert to lessor or mortgagor, as the case may be". From this it follows than sections 3 and 9(4) read together make it quite clear that a person is not to own or possess land more than the ceiling. In this view of the matter, the orders of the authorities calculating the holding of the declarant which he owned as well as possessed were quite correct.

Learned counsel for the petitioners also contended that the petitioners were entitled to retain some units for having installed the tube‑well. In this respect reference to the order of the Additional Chief Land Commissioner, dated 18‑6‑1983 would show that while taking into account the contention) of the petitioners that in view of the provision of section 9(4) of the Act that the petitioners have developed the land and, therefore, it may be returned to them, he had observed,

I cannot adjudicate about the land which has not vested in the Punjab Land Commission and had reverted back to the Colony Department. The authorities of Colony Department can decide about the rights of the petitioners and they can seek remedy before the above authorities". The learned officer has rightly pointed out the way to the petitioners. They can also take the plea as urged by their counsel that after the demise of the original lessee i. e. petitioners' predecessor‑in‑interest, the petitioners will be entitled to the restoration of land under the lease because the holding of each individually will be within the limit.

5. In view of what has been stated earlier, there is no force in this petition and the same is disposed of subject to the observations in the last paragraph.

M. Z. M. 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.