P L D 1966 W (PLP)
KARAM DIN‑Petitioner Versus JALAL DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | KARAM DIN‑Petitioner Versus JALAL DIN‑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, 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 1966 W (PLP) (KARAM DIN‑Petitioner Versus JALAL DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Sardar Ali for Petitioner.
- Iqbal Hussain for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑‑Change of entry at instance of tenant in respect of payment of share of produce‑Not legal.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Sardar Ali for Petitioner. Iqbal Hussain for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 21st of June 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, who, while exercising the powers of a Commissioner, accepted the revision preferred by the petitioner. The facts of the case are that mutation No. 646 was entered at the instance of Karam Din petitioner, and the entry of payment of one half the share of produce was proposed to be changed into that of showing the payment of no rent on account of being deemed to be a proprietor. The respondent went in appeal to the Collector, who rejected the appeal, but ordered a change to be made in the previous entry. The respondent went in revision before the Additional Commissioner, who accepting it and directed the parties to seek redress in a Civil Court. The petitioner has come up in second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His only contention is that the learned Additional Commissioner should not have interfered with the concurrent findings of the two authorities below. In the first instance it was not against the concurrent findings and in the second the interference was properly justified because the action taken by the Patwari was patently wrong. At the instance of a tenant who has been shown as paying half‑share of produce as rent the Patwari entered a mutation which purported to change the entry into one which would show that no payment of rent was being made because the tenant thought himself to be a proprietor. Such an entry cannot be changed at the instance of the tenant. If such a procedure is allowed, the interests of the land owners cannot be safeguarded. In these circumstances the learned Additional Commissioner was perfectly justified in interfering with the orders passed by the learned Collector. The second revision therefore, fails and is dismissed hereby. K.M.A Revision dismissed.