P L D (PLP)
Sayed MAQBOOL SHAH‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Sayed MAQBOOL SHAH‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (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 (PLP) (Sayed MAQBOOL SHAH‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) west Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, paras. 7 & 15‑Gift of land under restricted tenure‑Sanction of competent authority not obtained before imposition of Martial Law‑Validation of gift, held, rightly disallowed. (b) West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, paras. 7 & 15‑Gift‑Claim that donee had been paying land revenue and other Government dues not established‑Land not shown in revenue records in name of petitioner‑Orders refusing validation of gift not interfered.
Judgment & Decree
The facts of the case are that the petitioner put in Forms LC‑I and LC‑II, With regard to gifts, he made the following request:
(a) he may be allowed to gift 675 acres and 32 ghuntas of land to his sons ; (b) an additional area of 15 acres and 36 ghuntas may be permitted to be gifted in favour of Syed Ghulam Mustafa Shah ;and (c) the transfer of 200 acres of land in favour of his sister may also be permitted. During scrutiny, it was discovered that, out of the area mentioned at (a) above. 255 acres and 32 ghuntas of land were under restricted tenure. No sanction of the competent authority under section 8 of the Sind Act III of 1899 had been obtained. From the area proposed to be gifted under (a), this area was, therefore, deducted. So far as the proposed gift under (b) was concerned this was allowed. With regard to transfer at (c) the assertion made by the petitioner that the gift was made as far back as 1954, was not accepted as no entry had been made in the revenue records. The petitioner felt aggrieved with these orders and went in appeal to the Land Commissioner but his appeal was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. So far as the land under restricted tenure is concerned, the proposed gift was rightly disallowed, as the necessary sanction had not been secured and the gift was not complete before the imposition of Martial Law. There is no dispute about the gift mentioned at (b). So far as (c) is concerned, there is no entry to support the assertion made by the petitioner. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the donee had been paying land revenue and other Government dues. Nothing was produced before rime in support of this contention. Moreover, if the land stood in the revenue records in the name of the petitioner, it is not understood how Government dues in respect of this land could be paid by anybody else. In these circumstances, no interference is called for. The revision fails and is 'rejected hereby. S. Q. Revision rejected.