P L D 1965 W (PLP)
LEALA‑Petitioner Versus SALAMOON AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ---‑ Limitation for appeal ‑ Delay of 5 years, 5 months and 9 days condoned by Collector after considering case- Order upheld in Revision by Board‑A I R 1947 Lah. 76 not relevant. |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | LEALA‑Petitioner Versus SALAMOON AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Mutation, (a) Mutation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Mutation, (a) Mutation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---‑ Limitation for appeal ‑ Delay of 5 years, 5 months and 9 days condoned by Collector after considering case- Order upheld in Revision by Board‑A I R 1947 Lah. 76 not relevant. bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (LEALA‑Petitioner Versus SALAMOON AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner.
- Muhammad Aqil for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
‑ Limitation for appeal ‑ Delay of 5 years, 5 months and 9 days condoned by Collector after considering case- Order upheld in Revision by Board‑[A I R 1947 Lah. 76 not relevant].
‑Revision before Board against order of remand of case by Collector which had been upheld by Additional Commis sioner in Second Appeal‑Petitioner urging that question of "title" was involved‑Mere use of word "title" where word "claim" might have been used does not make case one involving question of "title" Revenue Officer in any case was expected to deal with case according to instructions and law if there was any "intricate" question of law involved, case having been remanded by Collector.
Judgment & Decree
‑Revision before Board against order of remand of case by Collector which had been upheld by Additional Commis sioner in Second Appeal‑Petitioner urging that question of "title" was involved‑Mere use of word "title" where word "claim" might have been used does not make case one involving question of "title" Revenue Officer in any case was expected to deal with case according to instructions and law if there was any "intricate" question of law involved, case having been remanded by Collector. Mian Muhammad Shafi for Petitioner. Muhammad Aqil for Respondents. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 24th of February 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Multan, who while exercising the powers of a Commissioner, rejected the second appeal filed by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that one Nawab Ali died and, on his death, the property was transferred to his son, Abdul Karim. Abdul Karim Also died and the property then went to his mother, Mst. Waziri. After Mst. Waziri's death, a mutation of inheritance was sanctioned in favour of Leala.' who was considered to be the only surviving heir of Mst. Waziri. This mutation was sanctioned in the absence of Salamoon respondent. After the lapse of five years, five months and nine days, Salamoon filed an appeal before the Collector who condoned the delay and accepted the appeal. The case was remanded for fresh decision. The petitioner went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has said that the delay of more than five years was not sufficiently explained and the Collector was not justified in extending the period of limitation. In this connection he has referred me to A I R 1947 Lah.
76. This ruling, however, is not relevant to the issue. The learned Collector did consider the matter and after condoning the delay, remanded the case. The next point urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, in this case, a question of title was involved. He has referred me to the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner where the word "title" is mentioned. Actually what the learned. Additional Commissioner appears to have meant was that the claim of Salamoon was not considered. At any rate, the case had been remanded, and, if the revenue officer finds that any intricate question of law is involved, he will pass the orders accord ing to the existing instructions and in accordance with law. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.