P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1966 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1966 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD HABIBULLAH KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ataullah Mukhtar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 15 read with para. 9(f)‑Petitioner, while making declarations in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II unaware that his units would exceed 36,000 and there fore not applying for concessions under para. 9(f)‑Scrutiny reveal ing that his units came to 38,241‑Petitioner directed to be allowed to avail of concessions under para. 9(f ) notwithstanding his failure to make application within prescribed time.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 15 read with para. 9(f)‑Petitioner, while making declarations in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II unaware that his units would exceed 36,000 and there fore not applying for concessions under para. 9(f)‑Scrutiny reveal ing that his units came to 38,241‑Petitioner directed to be allowed to avail of concessions under para. 9(f ) notwithstanding his failure to make application within prescribed time. Ataullah Mukhtar for Petitioner. This revision has been filed against an order, dated the 2nd July 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, D. I. Khan, whereby he refused to allow the petitioner to avail of concessions permissible under paragraph 9 (f) of the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. The facts of the case are that, during the scrutiny of Form LC‑I and Form LC‑II, it transpired that the number of units of the land owned by the petitioner came to 38,
241. The petitioner then requested the Deputy Land Commissioner to allow him to avail of the concessions permissible under paragraph 9 ( f ) of the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. This request was rejected. He went in appeal to the Land Commissioner who dismissed the appeal, but forwarded the case to the Chief Land Commissioner for consideration as to whether or not the time‑limit in such hard cases should be relaxed. A revision has been filed against these orders. I have heard the Mukhtar of the petitioner: In this case, no application under paragraph 9 (f ) was made because the petitioner thought that his units would not be more than 36,
000. Actual calculation showed that the units were more than this limit. He then made a request for availing of the concessions permissible under paragraph 9 (f ). In his case, it was not, therefore, possible for him to, make any application within the prescribed limit. I, therefore, accept the revision and direct that the petitioner should be allowed to avail of the concessions permissible under paragraph 9 (f ) of the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. S. Q. Revision accepted.