P L D 1966 W (PLP)
alias Dewan Syed GHULAM ABBAS‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | alias Dewan Syed GHULAM ABBAS‑Appellant 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) (alias Dewan Syed GHULAM ABBAS‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khalifa Mumtaz Hussain for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 7(2) Sale of land‑Part of sale price paid before imposition of Martial Law but delivery of possession not established nor tenants informed about change of ownership‑Transaction, held, not completed before imposition of Martial Law‑Validation of sale rightly rejected.
Judgment & Decree
Khalifa Mumtaz Hussain for Appellant. This order will dispose of the following two appeals:‑
(1) Dewan Syed Muhammad Sultan Ahmad alias Dewan Syed Ghulam Abbas v. State (306). (2) Dewan Syed Muhammad Sultan Ahmad alias Dewan Syed Ghulam Abbas v. State (307). These two appeals have been filed against orders dated the 11th of June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Multan, whereby he refused to validate the oral sale of the land in question made by the appellant in favour of Ghulam Sarwar, etc. The facts of the case are that the appellant moved for the validation of the sale mentioned above. The Land Commissioner found that the Patwari made a report in his Roznamcha Waqiati on 3rd January 1959, and the mutation is still pending. Hence these two appeals. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. He has shown me some documents to show that the part of the sale price was paid in instalments before the imposition of the Martial Law. There was no evidence to establish that the delivery of possession took place before the imposition of the Martial Law or the tenants were informed about the change of ownership. It is, therefore, clear that the transaction was not complete before the imposition of the Martial Law. The validation was, therefore, rightly rejected. No interference is called for. Both the appeals fail and are rejected hereby. S. Q. Appeal rejected.