P L D (PLP)
ALIMON‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Punjab |
| Bench Members | A. G. Riza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab |
| Parties | ALIMON‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | State land‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: State land‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Punjab bench comprising: A. G. Riza, Member (Colonies), Board of Revenue, Punjab.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (PLP) (ALIMON‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Allotment‑--Unit of tenancy indivisible‑‑Parties, on basis of a compromise, allowed to hold tenancy jointly in equal shares without partitioning it. Respondent No. 2 in person. Munir Hussain Colony Clerk for the State. Zulfiqar Ahmad Patwari with Record.
Judgment & Decree
Allotment‑--Unit of tenancy indivisible‑‑Parties, on basis of a compromise, allowed to hold tenancy jointly in equal shares without partitioning it. Syed Farooq Hassan Naqvi for Petitioner. Respondent No. 2 in person. Munir Hussain Colony Clerk for the State. Zulfiqar Ahmad Patwari with Record. The parties on appearance on 26‑10‑71 at the very outset requested for an adjournment to produce an application for compromise as they had entered into an agreement to hold the tenancy in joint ownership. The adjournment was allowed and compromise petition has accordingly been annexed as Annex ure `A'. It has further been ascertained that since the unit of tenancy was indivisible, parties may not be allocated separate field Nos. The scheme itself does not exclude sharing of a lot as there was no express condition to that effect. The State representative states that the co‑operative society should also have no objection as the parties are in cultivating possession of A the land jointly. The agreement is accordingly accepted. The parties may be allowed to hold this tenancy jointly in equal shares without partitioning it. Order accordingly.