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 for Leave to Appeal No. 626‑R of 1983, decided on 17th March, 1984.
(On appeal from the judgment of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, dated 2‑10‑1983 in Writ Petition No. 314 of 1983).
‑‑ Art. 185(3)‑Land Reforms Act (1I of 1977), S. 15(3)‑Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Grant of Lands) Rules, 1978, r. 7(2)‑‑Conten tion that petitioners being minors at relevant time were entitled to grant of land in question with an initial assertion that petitioner were cultivating tenants of disputed land during specified period same should have been granted to them‑Such pleas, though taken in some pleadings by petitioners but not pressed before Courts below‑Claim of petitioners for grant of land as tenants of whatever category found doubtful during proceedings because they were minors and their father was alive‑Whether petitioners were in reality tillers of soil also doubtful‑Father of petitioners being himself land‑owner wanted to get land by showing his minor sons to be landless tenants‑Supreme Court being not satisfied about bona fide of claim of petitioner, petition for leave to appeal dismissed.
Maulvi Sirajul Haq, Advocate Supreme Court and M. Afzal Siddiqi Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing : 17th March, 1984.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 2‑10‑1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional arising out of a Land Reforms case, was dismissed.
The petitioners who at the relevant time were minors claim that they were entitled to the grant of the land in question under subsection (3) of section 15 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 read with rule 7(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Grant of Lands) Rules, 1978. They had initially asserted that they were the cultivating tenants of the disputed land during the specified period therefore it should have been granted to them. But it was found as a fact that they were not the recorded tenants for that period. They had also pleaded that on failure to establish the aforesaid entitlement, they should be granted the land in question on 2nd priority, basis namely as landless tenants in preference to the respondents who are admittedly land‑owners.
Learned counsel for the petitioners has read the relevant law and has also taken us through the proceedings. Although the plea advanced now was taken in some pleadings of the petitioners, it was not pressed before the lower forums. Be that as it may, the claim of the petitioners for grant of land as tenants of whatever category was found doubtful during the proceedings because they were minors and that their father was alive. It was found doubtful whether they could in reality be the tillers' of soil. And their father it was further observed being himself a land‑owner wanted to get land by showing his minor sons to be the landless tenants.
We are not satisfied about the bona fides of the claim of the petitioners. This petition accordingly is dismissed.
M. Z. M. Petition accordingly.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer