1982 PLP 1603 (CLC)
Mst. NOUSHABA SULTANA‑Petitioner Versus OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | 1982 PLP 1603 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Single Bench |
| Parties | Mst. NOUSHABA SULTANA‑Petitioner Versus OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115)‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1982 PLP 1603 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115)‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1982 PLP 1603 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Honorable Judges.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1982 PLP 1603 (CLC) (Mst. NOUSHABA SULTANA‑Petitioner Versus OFFICER ON SPECIAL DUTY AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Imornali Kazi for Petitioner
- Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1981,
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Para. 8 (2) (i)‑Tractor concession‑‑Tractor available with petitioner but not registered with Police Department‑Held, non- registration of tractor in name of owner does not defeat entitlement to land. Shaft Muhammad v. Federal Land Commission 1979 C L C 91 and Mst. Fatima v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind 1981 C L C 942 fol. Respondents (absent)
Judgment & Decree
Shaft Muhammad v. Federal Land Commission 1979 C L C 91 and Mst. Fatima v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind 1981 C L C 942 fol. Imornali Kazi for Petitioner Respondents (absent) Date of hearing: 2nd September, 1981, By the present petition Mst. Naushaba Sultana seeks to impugn an j order of the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission in Suo Motu Revision Case No. 249/ FLC/75 dated 31st December,‑ 1976. We have beard Mr. Imam Ali Kazi for the petitioner. None appears for the respondent. The facts in the case are very simple and identical to the facts in the case of Shaft Muhammad v. Federal Land Commission (1979 C L C 91) and the case of Mst. Fatima v. Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind (1981 C L C 942). The patent position in the case is that the petitioner had a tractor but had not got it registered with the Police Department. The learned Officer on Special Duty has clearly stated that a tractor was available with the petitioner. In such circumstances in the two other cases it has been held by Division Benches of this Court that the mere fact of non‑registration of tractor in the name of owner does not defeat his entitlement to land as is allowed by paragraph 8 (2) of Land Reforms Regulation 1972 (Martial Law Regulation No. 115)]. Following the two decisions we do hereby declare that th impugned order is without lawful authority and of no legal effect. There shall be no order as to costs since the respondents are not` contesting. K.M.A. Petition accepted.