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.
Revision Side No. 107 of 1954‑55, decided on 31st May 1956, District Multan.
S. 20‑--Death of tenant--‑Suitable person as his successor.
Wirasat Hussain for Petitioner.
The tenancy in dispute was held in the name of the present petitioner's brother Ghulam Masih now deceased. On his death, the tenancy remained in the possession of the present petitioner and his son Barkat Masih. The local officers, however, took no immediate action on the death of the said tenant but when there was some default in the payment of Government dues, the authorities came to know of the death of Ghulam Masih. Even then, they did not take immediate action for showing the correct successor of the tenant. During their inquiry the said Barkat Masih, made statements before them to the effect that he was .a son of the deceased. Later, on he voluntarily appeared and stated that he was really the nephew and not the son of the deceased.
When the latter statement became known to the Reclamation officers, they declared that the possession of the present petitioner or his son Barkat Masih was unauthorised. The Colonization Officer, therefore, resumed the tenancy.
The order of resumption was clearly unjustified, because the successor of the previous tenant was bound to be either the present petitioner or his son. Illiterate tenants deserve sympathetic treatment on the part of Colonization Officers. The Collector should have accordingly accepted a suitable person as the successor of Ghulam Masih. The petitioner appealed to the Commissioner and his appeal was dismissed on the ground that it is time‑barred. There is nothing to indicate that the petitioner came to know of the resumption order immediately after it was passed. The order was passed on 6‑1‑55 and the appeal was lodged on 30‑4‑55. The appeal was dismissed on 23‑6‑55.
The Colonization Officer was approached by the Reclamation authorities to the effect that the tenancy should be given to the successors of Ghulam Masih deceased but the Collector passed an order on 3‑8‑55 to the effect that this could not be done because the land had since been allotted to one Nur Muhammad on 12‑3‑55 and because his widow was now in possession.
When I find that the original resumption order was unjustified it is only fair that the tenancy should be restored to the lawful successor and suitable compensation should be allowed to the present grantee. If the present grantee has a suitable right he or she should be given some other tenancy on similar terms.
The petition for revision will be considered to have been accepted as indicated above.
K. M. 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