P L D (PLP)
MIR MUBARAK KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MIR MUBARAK KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions 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 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 (PLP) (MIR MUBARAK KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Hassan Muhammad Shah for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 9(f ) Concession under para. 9 applicable only when gift is made to heir and area does not exceed 18,000 produce index units‑Method for finding out whether a person is an heir or not‑Heirs‑apparent and heirs presumptive not entitled to concession.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 9(f ) Concession under para. 9 applicable only when gift is made to heir and area does not exceed 18,000 produce index units‑Method for finding out whether a person is an heir or not‑Heirs‑apparent and heirs presumptive not entitled to concession. Hassan Muhammad Shah for Petitioner. This revision has been filed against an order, dated the 5th of August 1959, passed by Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the appeal filed by the petitioner against an order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner. Tharparkar who had refused the request of the petitioner for making a gift of the land in question in favour of his sister. The facts of the case are that the petitioner made a request for making a gift of the land in question to his sister, Mst. Sharifun Nisa, under paragraph 9(f ) of the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. The Deputy Land Commissioner held that she was not an heir to the donor and refused the request. The petitioner went in appeal to the Land Commissioner but his appeal was rejected. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. He has contended that provision of paragraph 9(f ) of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 is for the benefit of the donor and should not, therefore, be confined to mere heirs but should also include heirs apparent and heirs‑presumptive. I am afraid, I cannot accept this contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that this was a concession given to an existing owner but it was limited by two factors, namely, that the area should not exceed 18,000 units and the person in whose favour the gift is to be made, should be an heir. The correct method of finding out whether a person is an heir or not is to suppose that the donor died on 7th February 1959. All those persons, who would be entitled to inherit the property in accordance with the circum stances as they expected on that date, will be considered as heirs. If the donor is supposed to die on 7th February 1959, his father would be the heir and not the sister (the proposed donee). In these circumstances, no interference is called for. The revision fails and is rejected hereby. S. Q. Revision rejected.