Find a Lawyer

Review No. 45 of 1959‑60, decided on 4th March 1963, District Hyderabad.

May be treated as revision.

r. 81(3)‑Levy of premium‑‑Land being put to other uses‑Full premium leviable.

P. M. Amer for Petitioner.

This is an appeal against order passed by the Ex‑Revenue Commissioner, Karachi, communicated to the appellant by the Mukhtarkar, Tando Allah Yar on 21‑6‑1960 vide his robkari in Sindhi.

2. The facts as they appear from the application are that in the year 1950, the petitioner applied for conversion of an area of 4 acres from kabuli S. No. 230 of Deh Tondo Allah Yar for non agricultural purpose i.e. the installation of a Cotton Ginning Factory. This conversion was allowed by the Deputy Commis sioner, Hyderabad, in his order dated 20‑3‑1951, subject to the payment of altered assessment at the rate of Nine pies per sq. yard, plus Rs. 2,645‑10‑0 per acre as premium calculated under rule 81(3) of the Land Revenue Rules read with various Resolu tions of former Sind Government. In the year 1951, the appel lant again applied for conversion of the remaining area of 4 acres six Ghuntas of the same S. No. for the purpose of construction of Labourers Quarters, Mosque, school and Park to provide facilities to the labourers and staff of the factory. The Collector, Hyderabad granted the permission for this purpose on the condi tion that altered assessment will be charged as and when fixed by the late Revenue Commissioner. This the Revenue Commis sioner did under his order No. 1937‑31‑110‑F, dated 13‑2‑1953. The petitioner states that he was not informed of this decision, until on 15‑6‑1960 when he confronted with the bill of assessment for these 4‑6 acres for the years from 1952‑53 up‑to‑date total ling Rs. 8,999‑14‑0 at the rate of Rs. 0‑0‑9 per sq. yard. It is from this order that the appellant has come up in appeal to the Board of Revenue and has prayed for stay of recovery of this amount. My learned brother Mr. Nasir Ahmad, M. B. R. in his order dated 23‑7‑60 stayed recovery, except at the rate of 2 pies per sq. yard. The appellant also filed an application with the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, but since the original order was passed by the former Revenue Commissioner for Sind and the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, was incompetent to revise his predecessor's orders, the case has to be disposed of by the Board, as higher authority over the late Revenue Commissioner.

3. The petitioner has requested that in case an appeal is not competent it may be treated as a revision under section 211 of the Sind Land Revenue Code. I shall in the interest of justice, treat it as revision application.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner's main contention, supported by certificate of Mukhtiarkar Tando Allah Yar, is that out of the total of 4‑6 acres of land 2‑26 acres are left vacant being within hundred feet of the railway line. Apart from this he prays that four Ghantas under the mosque, five Ghantas under Madrissah and 11 Ghantas under the play ground, may be exempted from assessment and premium in view of note at page 9 Standing Order 4 Section (C) which is to the following effect:‑

"No premium should be levied on land which is used for the construction of quarters to settle operators employed in a factory in cases in which such land is separate from the plots of the Factory proper. A condition should, however, be inserted in the Sanad while granting such permission without premium that if it is found any time hereafter that the land is being put to other uses, full premium will be leviable (Govern ment Memo. No. 2992‑33/F, dated the 27th June 1941).

I find that the petitioner's prayer is very reasonable. I would, therefore, accept the revision to this extent that I would allow the area of 2‑26 acres un-built portion near the railway line and 20 Ghantas of mosque, Madressah and play ground to be exempted from the levy of premium or altered assessment. This will be subject to the condition laid down in the final sentence of the note that "if at any time hereafter the land is being put to other uses, full premium as well as altered assessment will be leviable". As for the remaining 1‑20 acres the petitioner will be liable to pay the altered assessment at two pies as well as normal premium leviable, if any.

5. I incidentally notice letter No. OSI/BA/19971 of 1962, dated 6th November 1962 from A. D. C. Hyderabad to Commis sioner, Hyderabad Division shows that permission was granted to Hafiz Abdul Aziz and Haji Muhammad Yaqoob for installa tion of Cotton Ginning Factories in similar circumstances and the petitioner states that these parties obtained permission subsequent to him. The report shows that they have been charged three pies per annum by way of altered assessment. The Commissioner may look into the reason for charging the petitioner altered assessment at nine pies and these two parties in the same category, at three pies per sqr. yd. and kindly report to me within 3 weeks, if the allegations are correct.

K. M. A. Revision accepted.

Find a Lawyer Near You

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