P L D 1966 W (PLP)
Mian SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Mian SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑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, Chief Land Commissioner, 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) (Mian SHAH MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Khawaja Abdur Rahim for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 9(d)‑
Private unrecognized farms‑Concessions under para. 9(d) not permissible to owners of such farms.
Judgment & Decree
This order will dispose of the following four appeals‑‑‑ (1) Mian Shah Muhammad v. State (Appeal No. 332). (2) Mian Fateh Muhammad v. State (Appeal No. 333). (3) Mian Syed Muhammad v. State (Appeal No. 334). (4) Mian Ata Muhammad v. State (Appeal No. 340). These four appeals have been filed against orders dated the 15th of July 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby he rejected the requests of the appellants for availing of concession permissible under paragraph 9 (d) of the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. The facts of the case are that the appellants put in applica tions under paragraph 9(d) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 before the Deputy Land Commissioner, Bahawalnagar. The Deputy Land Commissioner found that the appellants 'held private farms which were net recognized. The Deputy Land Commissioner did not, therefore, recommend their cases. The Land Commissioner ultimately rejected the requests. Hence these four appeals, I have heard the learned counsel for the appellants. He has shown me a number of certificates but they all go to show that, although the farms were private and were not recognized, the appellants were doing good work. Concessions are permissible under paragraph 9(d) of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 only, to those persons who are owners of recognized livestock and stud farms. None of the four appellants fall under that category. All the four appeals fail and are rejected hereby. S.Q Appeals rejected.