Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
R.O.R. No. 1397 of 1986, decided on 22nd July, 1986.
‑‑‑S. 164‑‑Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912 S.24‑‑Proprietary rights allowed to petitioner on payment of specific amount‑‑Amount not deposited by specific date‑‑Resumption of land t Collector‑‑Non‑payment, held, was a rectifiable breach of conditions Where petitioner was prepared to pay dues in lump sum, he could 1 allowed to deposit outstanding dues by specified dates, failing which resumption order already passed by Collector would hold good.
Hasnat Ahmad for Petitioner.
This is a revision petition against the order of Addition Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, dated 28‑4‑1986, whereby he dismiss the appeal of the petitioner against the order of District Collector Sahiwal, dated 2‑1‑1986. The latter had resumed Square Nos. 2/21 23 Square Nos. 5/1 to 3, 8 to 12, 20, Square Nos. 6/15, 16, 17 measuring 19 Kanal 17 Marlas situated in Chak No. 57/1) from to petitioner which had earlier been granted to him under Notification dated 3‑9‑1979.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner had been allow proprietary rights of the disputed land for Rs.45,100 on 10‑10‑19 after being declared eligible under Government Notification No. 3215‑7 3973‑CL.I, dated 3‑9‑1979. The petitioner did not deposit any instalme towards the price of land and, therefore, District Collector issued h a show‑cause notice under section 24 of the Government Colonization Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, but was allowed to deposit t defaulted instalments, on 20‑6‑1983 with interest/penal interest and penalty of Rs.5,000 within 2 months from the date of order, fail which the land would stand resumed. The petitioner, however, did n comply with the orders and the D.C./Collector finally resumed t land, on 2‑1‑1986. The petitioner appealed against the order but t Additional Commissioner rejected on merits as well as on limitatio Hence this revision petition.
3. 1 have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He alleged that during pendency of the case before District Collector he had be told to next date of hearing, on 2‑4‑1986, but when he appeared 2‑4‑1986, he was told that his case was not fixed for the said date a that he should enquire about the case a few days later. He claim that when he again approached the Court on 19‑4‑1986, he was to that his case had already been dismissed, on 2‑1‑1986, and the law was resumed. He argued that non‑payment of dues was a rectifial breach of condition and the petitioner was prepared to pay the instalmen with tine in lump sum. He claimed that he had always tried to deposit the instalments but the concerned staff had not issued him the challan. The Additional Commissioner had dismissed his appeal without considering the arguments of the petitioner for the late filing of ‑the appeal.
4. I have considered the arguments and perused the record. Non‑payment is a rectifiable breach of conditions and the petitioner is prepared to pay the dues in a lump sum. He is therefore, allowed to A deposit the outstandings dues as directed by the District Collector by 1‑10‑1986, failing which the resumption order would hold good.
A . A Revision allowed
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer