MAHMOOD AHMAD Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER

ORDER

1. Arguments heard. The petitioner Mahmood Ahmad has produced a challan which shows that he has paid Rs. 450 on 23‑6‑1971 as penalty for illicit cultivation. It was further stated that he has to pay Rs. 410 for Kharif 1971 as penalty. There was therefore ample proof that Mahmood the petitioner was in unlawful possession of the land in dispute.

2. The counsel for the petitioner says that the petitioner should have been given a notice for the resumption of land. But since it is accepted by the petitioner that he was an unauthorized occupant there could be no justification of further notice for resumption. I have given careful consideration to the facts of the case and find no force in it. Hence rejected.

3. Petition rejected.