Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD SHAFI And Another Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of a learned Single Judge of the High Court, which upheld the refusal of Settlement authorities to allow the petitioners to exercise their right of choice in surrendering excess land. The core legal question was whether landowners who have already alienated the entirety of their entitlement land retain a statutory right to choose which specific parcels of land to surrender as excess. The Supreme Court held that the petition lacked merit and dismissed it. The Court reasoned that the right to surrender excess land by choice presupposes the existence of land in the possession of the petitioner. Since the petitioners had already sold the entire land comprising their entitlement, no land remained for them to exercise any choice regarding surrender. Consequently, the claim was found to be legally untenable as the subject matter for the exercise of the right had been extinguished by the petitioners' own prior actions of sale.
- Can a landowner exercise a right to choose which land to surrender as excess if they have already sold their entire entitlement?
- Does the right to surrender excess land exist when the petitioner no longer possesses any land?
ORDER
ABDUL SHAKURUAL SALAM, J.---This order will dispose of Civil Petitions for Leave to Appeals Nos.293 and 294 of 1987.
2.The petitioners sought to exercise their right of choice to surrender the excess land. They were refused relief by the Settlement authorities on the ground that they had already sold the entire land of their entitlement. The order was upheld by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.120-R of 1987. Hence this petition.
3.Learned counsel contended that the petitioners had a right to surrender excess land according to their choice. But there is no land left with the petitioners which they can choose to surrender as they have already sold the entire land of their entitlement.
4.There is no merit in this petition. It is dismissed.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Shakurul Salam771 judgments
- Rustam S. Sidhwa1,121 judgments