Pakistan Case LawMUHAMMAD BASHIR KHAN through Muhammad Saeed Khan Versus BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB through Secretary (Colonies), Lahore and another
This matter arises from a petition for leave to appeal against the dismissal of a writ petition by the Lahore High Court, which had upheld the cancellation of a Lambardari land allotment made in favor of the petitioner. The core legal question is whether a Lambardar of one Chak is entitled to the allotment of a Lambardari grant situated in a neighbouring Chak under government policy. The Supreme Court held that the allotment of land to a Lambardar is governed by government policy memos, specifically prohibiting the accommodation of a Lambardar of one Chak in a neighbouring Chak. The Court concluded that the petitioner, being a Lambardar of Chak No. 135-A/9-L, could not be accommodated in the disputed land situated in Chak No. 135/9-L. Consequently, the petition for leave to appeal was refused, affirming that outgoing or neighbouring Lambardars have no automatic entitlement to land outside their specific Chak contrary to governing administrative memos.
- Whether a Lambardar of one Chak can be accommodated with a Lambardari grant situated in a neighbouring Chak?
- Does a person appointed in place of an outgoing Lambardar hold an automatic entitlement to land held by the predecessor in a different Chak?
ORDER
SALEEM AKHTAR, J.---The petitioner seeks leave to appeal against the judgment of the learned Judge in Chambers whereby the writ petition filed by Muhammad Bashir Khan was dismissed.
2.Muhammad Bashir Khan was permanent Lambardar of adjoining Chak No, 135-A/9-L. He applied for the allotment of Lambardari grant situated in Chak No, 135/9-L, which was allotted on 7-5-1968 and its possession was delivered on 29-5-1968. Respondent No,2, Lambardar of Chak No, 135/9-L, where the disputed plot is situate, filed an appeal, which was dismissed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue) on 1-10-1968. He then challenged this appellate order by filing revision application, which was allowed. The petitioner filed Constitution petition against the said order, which was dismissed by the impugned judgment.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner had been appointed Lambardar in place of Rajkumar, evacuee Lambardar of Chak No 135-A/9-L, who held the land in question in his capacity as Lambardar and therefore he is also entitled to hold the same land. This contention is misconceived as a person appointed in place of an outgoing Lambardar can hardly make such a claim. The allotment of land to a Lambardar is governed by the memos, and policy laid down by the Government, One such memo, has been referred to by the learned Judge in Chambers bearing No,5657-41650 CGI dated 23.114963, according to which the Lambardar of one Chak should not be accommodated in the neighbouring Chak, The petitioner is not a Lambardar of Chak No, 135-A/9-L and therefore he could not be accommodated in that Chak, We do not find any force in the petition and refuse to grant leave.
Judges on this bench
- Abdul Qadeer Chaudhry1,248 judgments
- Saleem Akhtar1,928 judgments