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 No. 327 of 1958‑59, decided on 24th November 1959, District Montgomery.
(a) Review‑No appeal lies from order refusing permission for review.
(b) Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (Vof1912), Ss. 24 & 26‑S. 26 applies when land is resumed under S. 24 5. 26 not applicable in case of relinquishment.
This purports to be a revision petition against the Commis sioner of Multan's order dated 14‑7‑1958, regarding Ahata No. 16 in Chak No. 1/9‑L, Tehsil Okara.
Petitioner Ghulam Muhammad was in possession of this Ahata, but he applied to the Colony Assistant on 19‑11‑1956, surrendering it on the ground that he was migrating to Lyallpur. The Ahata was allotted to the respondent, Wali Muhammad, who has since paid its sale proceeds into the Government treasury. The petitioner applied to the Colony Assistant for review of his order dated 12‑3‑1957, and the Settlement Officer recommended this application to the Commissioner. But the Commissioner refused to grant permission to review the Colony Assistant's order. As no appeal lies from an order refusing permission for review, in so far as it is an interim order, the Commissioner rejected the application in miscellaneous proceedings. I think the Commis sioner's decision was correct. However, the petitioner contends before me that his application dated 19‑11‑56, surrendering the Ahata, was a forgery and that he never applied for permission to surrender it. But in his oral statement recorded before the Colony Assistant on 12‑3‑1957, he clearly admitted that he had applied for permission to relinquish the Ahata on the ground that he was migrating to Lyallpur, but that as he had changed his mind and was not leaving the Chak, he would like the Ahata to be restored to him. In the face of this clear statement, he cannot now disown his application of relinquishment filed on 19‑11‑56. Another ground taken before me by the learned Advocate is that compensation for his buildings has not been fixed or awarded by the Collector under section 26of the coloniza tion of Government Lands Act and, therefore, his relinquishment is not effective. But section 26 comes into operation only in cases where the tenancy has been resumed by the Collector under section 24. This is not the case here and section 26 does not apply.
The revision petition is, therefore, dismissed.
K. M. A. Revision dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer