DELDAR ALI KHAN AND 7 Others vs THE STATE
This matter involves a petition for leave to appeal against the concurrent findings of the trial court and the Sessions Court, which convicted the petitioners under Section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the theft of crops. The petitioners contended that they held a bona fide claim of right over the disputed land, asserting that the land had been settled with them by the Government prior to the incident. The core legal question was whether the petitioners could successfully invoke a bona fide claim of right to justify the forcible reaping and removal of crops cultivated by the complainant party. The Supreme Court upheld the dismissal of the petitioners' revisional application by the High Court. The Court held that even assuming the petitioners had obtained a settlement of the land in December 1966, they could not assert a bona fide claim of right over crops that had been cultivated by the complainant party prior to that date. The petition was consequently dismissed, affirming that a subsequent claim to land does not retroactively validate the misappropriation of pre-existing crops.
- Can a party assert a bona fide claim of right over crops cultivated by another person prior to the party's alleged settlement of the land?
- Does a subsequent settlement of land by the Government justify the forcible removal of crops grown by a previous possessor?
- Section 379, Pakistan Penal Code 1860
1. SALAHUDDIN AHMED, J.-The petitioners have been convicted under section 379 of the Pakistan Penal Code for having forcibly reaped and taken away on the 19th March 1967 wheat and gram worth about Rs. 400 grown by P. W. 1 Bhabani Prosed through his bargaders in the disputed land.
2. The defence was that tile lands had been settled with peti--tioner No. 1 Deldar Ali Khan and another by the Government long before the date of occurrence and they got possession of the land in December 1966. Both the trying Magistrate and in appeal the Sessions Judge found that P. W. 1 had grown the crops in question. The High Court dismissed the petitioner's revisional application and the petitioners, lave, therefore, approached this Court for leave to appeal on the ground that the High Court failed to consider the question of bona fide claim of right on the part of the petitioners.
3. On reference to the High Court judgment we find that this is not true. The High Court has observed that even if the petitioners had taken settlement of the disputed lands towards the end of December 1966 they could not assert any bona fide claim of right in respect of the wheat and gram grown earlier in the lands by the complainant party.
4. The application is accordingly dismissed. revisions by the competent authorities. Therefore, it is advisable to consult the official sources or legal professionals for the most up-to-date and accurate information.