P L D 1959 W (PLP)
WARYAM KHAN‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1959 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | H. A. Majid, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | WARYAM KHAN‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1959 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 1959 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: H. A. Majid, 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 1959 W (PLP) (WARYAM KHAN‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912), S. 19‑--Sanction for transfer obtained‑No transfer deed executed‑Transfer though once admitted was disputed subsequently by transferor‑--Mutation should not be sanctioned‑--Transferee may seek his remedy in Civil Court.
Judgment & Decree
S. 19‑--Sanction for transfer obtained‑No transfer deed executed‑Transfer though once admitted was disputed subsequently by transferor‑--Mutation should not be sanctioned‑--Transferee may seek his remedy in Civil Court. Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent. The present petitioner obtained permission under section 19' of the Colonization of Government Lands (Punjab) Act, 1912, for transferring his tenancy to the respondent. Afterwards, a mutation of the actual transfer was entered by the Patwari but it was rejected by the Assistant Collector. An appeal by the present respondent was accepted by the Collector. The Commissioner rejected a second appeal by the present petitioner. There is no transfer deed in favour of the present respon dent. The petitioner, however, did give a petition before the Tahsil Officer and admitted therein that the transfer had been effected by him. He, however, also submitted further petitions to the effect that the said petition had been obtained from him by the exercise of some clear trick. In these circumstances, the safest course for the Revenue Officers is to declare that the actual transfer is not established. The mutation in the present case should have been accordingly rejected as was done by the Assistant Collector. It is open to the present respondent to obtain a declara tion from a Civil Court to the effect that the transfer in dispute was actually effected in his favour. When he obtains such a decree, there will be no difficulty in entering a mutation in his favour. In the above circumstances, I accept this petition of revision and direct that the mutation in question should stand rejected. K. M. A. Petition accepted.