- Ss-8, 9, 12, 14 to 16 — Usurpation of others property is strictly prohibited by Shariah — The cumulative effect of the same is to take away the immovable property of an owner beyond certain limits and put a restriction on the quantum of acreage which envisaged in aforesaid provisions cannot be regarded as compensation in the true connotation of the word as it is merely nominal. The provisions of sections 8, 9, 12, 14 to 16 of the Land Reforms Act 1960 declared against Shariah. Azad Government v. Raja Waleed Khan 1993 SCR 307 (A)
- R. 11 – There is no bar in the rule that second review does not lie. Sardar Ali & others v. Karamat Ali Khan & others 1993 SCR 226 (E)
- Section 25(2)(4)26,27 & 28 — Occupancy tenant occupying land at the time of promulgation of the Act would become owners in the manner prescribed under sub-section (2) of section 25 — Occupancy tenant can only become full owner after paying compensation to the landlord failing which, under sub-section (4) tenancy stands extinguished and the landlord become entitled to possession of the land under occupation of the occupancy tenant free from any encumbrance. Abdul Hamid Khan & 3 others v. Ghulam Ahmad Khan and 41 others 1999 SCR 444 (A)
- S. 28 — Situation existed before war of Liberation was given continuity by enacting S.28 providing that sections 25, 26 & 27 of the Act would not apply to cases where occupancy tenants were evacuees and landlords were non-evacuees. Abdul Hamid Khan & 3 others v. Ghulam Ahmad Khan and 41 others 1999 SCR 444 (B)
- Holy Quran and Sunnah permit to take a property without compensation only from a usurper but in case of old ownership it is not possible to ascertain whether the same is lawful or unlawful — If it is necessary to bring the reforms in private holding it can only be done by purchasing the lands from the owners. Azad Government v. Raja Waleed Khan 1993 SCR 307 (B & C)
- — Shamilat deh land— illegal possession prior to promulgation of Act—effect of—The land Reforms Act confers no right in Shamilat deh land to a person prior to its enforcement—Plaintiffs were not occupancy tenants in the shamilat deh land prior to enforcement of Act,1960, therefore, they have no right to claim share in the shamilat deh land. Held: only those persons, who were owners in the village prior to promulgation of Act, 1960 are entitled to be sharer in the shamilat deh land—Further held: A tenant, who is in illegal possession of the land cannot be granted the title of an owner. Said Akbar & others v. Muhammad Shakoor &others 2017 SCR 108 (C)
error: Content is protected !!