BASHARAT ALI AND ANOTHER vs ALLAH WASAYA AND OTHERS
This petition for leave to appeal challenged a judgment of the Lahore High Court, which dismissed a constitutional petition arising from a Land Reforms dispute. The petitioners, who were minors at the material time, sought the grant of land under the Land Reforms Act, 1977, claiming entitlement as cultivating tenants. Upon failing to establish their status as recorded tenants, they alternatively argued for the grant of land on a second-priority basis as landless tenants, asserting preference over the respondents who were landowners. The Supreme Court examined the proceedings and noted that the petitioners' claim was factually doubtful, particularly given their status as minors with a living father who was himself a landowner. The Court observed that the father appeared to be attempting to acquire land by utilizing his minor sons' names. Finding no merit in the petitioners' bona fides, the Court dismissed the petition. The judgment reaffirms that claims for land grants under land reform legislation require genuine status as tillers of the soil and that courts will scrutinize the bona fides of applicants to prevent the circumvention of land reform objectives.
- Can minor children claim land grants as cultivating tenants when their father is a landowner?
- Does the failure to establish status as a recorded tenant preclude a claim for land grant on a second-priority basis?
- Are courts required to examine the bona fides of applicants in land reform grant proceedings?
- Section 15(3), Land Reforms Act 1977
- Rule 7(2), Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Grant of Lands) Rules 1978
ORDER
1. MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, J.-This petition for leave to appeal is directed against judgment dated 2-10-1983 of the Lahore High Court; whereby a Constitutional arising out of a Land Reforms case, was dismissed.
2. ' The petitioners who at the relevant time were minors claim that they were entitled to the grant of the land in question under subsection (3) of section 15 of the Land Reforms Act, 1977 read with rule 7(2) of the Punjab Land Reforms (Procedure for Grant of Lands) Rules, 1978. They had initially asserted that they were the cultivating tenants of the disputed land during the specified period therefore it should have been granted to them. But it was found as a fact that they were not the recorded tenants for that period. They had also pleaded that on failure to establish the aforesaid entitlement, they should be granted the land in question on 2nd priority basis namely as landless tenants in preference to the respondents who are admittedly land-owners.
3. ' Learned counsel for the petitioners has read the relevant law and has also taken us through the proceedings. Although the plea advanced now was taken in some pleadings of the petitioners, it was not pressed before the lower forums. Be that as it may, the claim of the petitioners for grant of land as tenants of whatever category was found doubtful during the proceedings because they were minors and that their father was alive. It was found doubtful whether they could in reality be the tillers' of soil. And their father it was further observed being himself a land-owner wanted to get land by showing his minor sons to be the landless tenants.
4. ' We are not satisfied about the bona fides of the claim of the petitioners. This is dismissed.