P L D 1966 W (PLP)
ALLAH BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ALLAH BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL 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) (ALLAH BAKHSH‑Petitioner Versus FAZAL DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 26 Provision transitional‑Applies to land in respect of which orders of resumption or utilization can be passed. Respondent in person.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Anwar for Petitioner. Respondent in person. This is a second revision filed against an order, dated the 12th of July 1963, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that the petitioner brought a suit of ejectment against the respondent and the Assistant Collector 1st Grade passed a decree for ejectment. The respondent filed an appeal before the Collector but it was dismissed. He then went in revision to the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, who accepted it. Hence this second revision. I have heard the counsel for the petitioner, He has contended that paragraph 26 of the Martial Law Regulation 64 is applicable in this case. I am affraid I cannot agree with this. In the first instance para. 26 of Martial Law Regulation 64 applies only to those lands in respect of which orders of resumption or utilization of land can be passed under the said Regulation. In the second, the provisions of para. 26 were only transitional. They were operative only so long as orders for resumption or utilization of land had not been passed. Such a stage was over long before the institution of the suit for ejectment by the petitioner. No other point has been urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Moreover, I find that the view taken by the learned Additional Commissioner, was perfectly correct. In these circumstances, the second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.