P L D 1965 W (PLP)
KAPURA‑Petitioner Versus ISLAM‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KAPURA‑Petitioner Versus ISLAM‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Mutation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: 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 High Court bench comprising: N/A.
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) (KAPURA‑Petitioner Versus ISLAM‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Qamaruddin for Petitioner.
- Fayaz Hussain Qadri for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Exchange of land between A and B)‑A getting mutation of his own land sanctioned in favour of B‑B delaying for a year mutation of his own land in favour of A‑A appealing to get his mutation cancelled‑B's brother (but not B himself) after institution of A's appeal getting a mutation sanctioned in favour of A‑Such mutation initiated by brother of B, held, had no legal value, no power of attorney having been produced by B's brother Collector s order on A's appeal directing parties to revert to their original positions confirmed by Additional Commissioner Concurrent orders, upheld by Board In Revision.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Qamaruddin for Petitioner. Fayaz Hussain Qadri for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 3rd of December 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the appeal preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that the parties agreed to exchange land with each other. The land of the respondent situated in village Wadiala Sandwan was to be given to the petitioner while the petitioner was to give the respondent land in village Weero wala. The respondent got a mutation of exchange sanctioned on 18‑1‑1962. The petitioner did not get any mutation sanctioned in favour of the respondent for about a year. On 14‑1-1963, the respondent went in appeal to the Collector alleging that the petitioner had failed to pay him Rs. 200 and had not given his land in exchange. It was requested that the exchange mutation be cancelled. During the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner's brother got a mutation of exchange sanctioned in favour of the respondent. The Collector, however, accepted his appeal and ordered that the parties should revert to their original position. Aggrieved by these orders, the petitioner went in appeal to the Additional Commissioner but it was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. It is true that there is no mention of Rs. 200 in the mutation of, exchange No. 997 sanctioned in favour of the petitioner but the fact remains that, for about a year, the petitioner did not fulfil his part of the contract. It was only after the respondent had filed an appeal before the Collector that a mutation of exchange was sanctioned in favour of the respondent, but 'this mutation was not initiated by the petitioner but his brother get it sanctioned. Such a mutation has no legal value at all because the petitioner can always say that his brother had no authority. The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the brother had the power of attorney from the petitioner but neither any such power of attorney has been produced before me nor was it placed before the Additional Commissioner or the Collector. From the circumstances of the case, it is quite clear that the petitioner delayed the fulfilling of his part of the contract and even when he did so, it was done in a manner which was neither legal nor bona fide. I, therefore, see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Additional Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.