Find a Lawyer

Writ Petition No. 4260 of 1985, decided on 18th December, 1986.

‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S.30(l)(2)‑‑ Acquisition of proprietary right by tenant‑‑Resumption of‑ Validity‑‑Right of tenant before resumption‑‑Once proprietary rights have been conferred on tenant such tenant, held, was required to be given show‑cause notice before resuming his land under S.30(2) of Act V of 1912.

Ch. Qadir Bakhsh for Petitioner.

Tanvir Ahmad Khan Addl. A.‑G. for Respondent.

Date of hearing: 18th February, 1986.

On acceptance of the petitioner's Writ Petition No. 3006 of 1975, the case was remanded to the learned Member, Board of Revenue. Though the question of extension of lease was, the subject‑matter of the post‑remand hearing yet in the course of hearing of R.O.R. No. 1010/74‑75, the learned Member, by his order dated 7‑2‑1985, in rejecting the petitioner's revision, cancelled the Collector's order dated 8‑6‑1983 as well Under this order proprietary rights had been granted to the petitioner. This cancellation is under challenge in this writ petition.

2. The petitioner's grievance is, that the revision petition which was being heard by the learned Member, Board of Revenue was directed against a different order: the grant of proprietary rights was not the subject‑matter there and, therefore, while disposing of the revision petition it was not open to him to denude, the petitioner of the proprietary rights in the land. The submission, is that in case the land had to be resumed and the order granting the proprietary rights annulled the petitioner should have been served with a notice and given an adequate opportunity of being heard before passing an order detrimental to his interest.

3. The learned Additional Advocate‑General willingly had to agree the petitioner was entitled to a reasonable notice, to explain his position before he could be striped off the proprietary rights. Once proprietary rights have been conferred on a tenant, under subsection (2) of section 30 of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab Act, 1912), before resuming the land he is required to be given a show‑cause notice. The impugned order does not reflect that a reasonable opportunity, to defend the order in question as envisaged by section 30(2) ibid was provided to the petitioner.

4. For the foregoing reasons this writ petition is allowed, the order, dated 7‑2‑1985 impugned in this writ petition to the extent of setting aside of the Collector's order dated 8‑6‑1983; granting proprietary rights to the petitioner is declared to have been made without lawful authority and modified accordingly. The petitioner is directed to appear before the learned Member, Board of Revenue on 18‑3‑1986.

H.B.T. Petition allowed.

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.