ABDUL RUB Versus THE STATE

ORDER

I have seen the records of the case and heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The position is that the original grantee Abdul Rub has been convicted to transportation for life by the High Court in 1970, according to the petitioner's Attorney. The learned counsel for the petitioner has however submitted that the appeal against the judgment of the High Court is pending before the Supreme Court and is likely to come up for hearing in the near future. This statement has been supported by a statement in writing as well.

2. This grant was made in favour of the petitioner under the orders of the Additional Commissioner dated 10‑7‑1962. According to the petitioner he took possession of the grant in 1963 and that the lease is to expire after Rabi 1972. It is also stated before me that the petitioner is in possession of the grant and is cultivating through his relations. The learned counsel for the petitioner concedes that the arguments put up by the petitioner about allowing cultivation through relations etc. has no force and A. that in the face of the conviction of the grantee the grant is liable to resumption under the normal Colony conditions, applicable in the present case as well.

3. The grant has therefore rightly been cancelled by the Collector and the Additional Commissioner. There is however, one point to be taken into account namely, that the case of the petitioner is pending in the Supreme Court and if he is acquitted by the Supreme Court the grant would not be liable to resumption. Since the case is likely to come up for hearing soon and the lease, in any case, is going to expire after Rabi 1972, the petitioner should not be dispossessed till the expiry of the period of the lease in Rabi 1972, or the decision of the Supreme Court, if it goes against him, whichever may be earlier.

Order may be issued and parties may be informed accord ingly.

Order accordingly.