P L D 1966 W (PLP)
CH. KHUDA BAKHSH‑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 | CH. KHUDA BAKHSH‑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) (CH. KHUDA BAKHSH‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ismail Bhatti for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, paras. 7 & 4(2)‑Gift of land and delivery of possession to donee allegedly made in 1937‑No evidence about change of possession, except affidavit, available‑Revenue records showing donor in possession-Orders of officers below refusing to validate gift not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Ismail Bhatti for Appellant. This appeal has been filed against an order, dated the 13th of June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Rawalpindi, where by he refused to validate an alleged gift made by the appellant in favour of his mother. The facts of the case are that it was alleged that the appellant made a gift of land in question in 1957 and delivery of possession was effected to the donee. On 29th November 1958, the donee brought in a civil suit alleging that the donor was interfering with her possession. The donor admitted the gift and a consent decree was obtained. The appellant moved for the validation of the transaction. The Deputy Land Commissioner did not recommend it. The Land Commissioner agreed with the Deputy Land Commissioner and refused validation. Hence this appeal. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. It was argued that gift was made in 1957 and delivery of possession was effected at that very time. Besides the affidavit, there is no other evidence about the change of possession. The revenue entries in the records show the donor as in possession of the land in question. It was contended that there were no entries in the khasra girdawari because the son, was managing on behalf of the mother. If that was so, there will be no question of the donor interfering with the possession of the donee as was alleged in the civil suit. In the circumstances of the case, I do not find any justification for interfering wish the concurrent findings of the Deputy and Commissioner and the Land Commissioner. The appeal fails and is rejected hereby. S. Q. Appeal rejected.