P L D (Rev (PLP)
LAL HUSSAIN and others‑Applicants Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Said Ullah Khan, Financial Commissioner |
| Parties | LAL HUSSAIN and others‑Applicants Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Said Ullah Khan, Financial Commissioner.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (LAL HUSSAIN and others‑Applicants Versus GHULAM MUHAMMAD and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Claim relating to certain field numbers‑
Petitioners not shown as landlords or occupancy tenants in respect of one of the numbers‑Whole claim dismissed on preliminary examination Claim should have been decided after recording evidence.
Judgment & Decree
Revision No. 2 of 1947‑48, (from Attock District), decided on 19th August 1950. Claim relating to certain field numbers‑
Petitioners not shown as landlords or occupancy tenants in respect of one of the numbers‑Whole claim dismissed on preliminary examination Claim should have been decided after recording evidence. It may be pointed out at the outset that the Commissioner's reference in this case is not only correct but well merited in so far that justice was being prostituted by the subordinate Courts who do dot appear to be aware of the ele mentary principles of Revenue Law by throwing out a case on the score of non‑compliance of the order of the Assistant Col lector, which was prima facie a misdirection unwarranted and unjustified. The petitioner in this case filed a plaint relating to certain field numbers, viz., Khasra Nos. 17, 18, 304; 325 and 330, in village Daur Dad, tahsil and District Attock and if after a preliminary esa4nination of facts, it appeared to the Assistant Collector that in one field number‑i.e., ‑18‑‑the petitioners were neither shown, as landlords nor persons enjoying should have been given accordingly and the rest of the field numbers namely. 17, 304, 425 and 330‑disposed of on merits according to law. The subordinate Courts do not seem to have applied their mind to this case and I, therefore, feel no hesitation in accepting the recommendation of the Commis sioner, and in setting aside the order of the lower Courts, order that the case should now he taken up afresh and disposed on merits consistent with law. Inform the parties accordingly. A.H Case remanded.