1993 PLP 1680 (SCMR)
KALU KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PURDIL KHAN and 10 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1680 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Sajjad Ali Shah, J |
| Parties | KALU KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PURDIL KHAN and 10 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1680 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: West Pakistan Land Revenue Act (XVII of 1967)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1680 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Muhammad Afzal Zullah, C.J. and Sajjad Ali Shah, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1680 (SCMR) (KALU KHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PURDIL KHAN and 10 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Abdul Aziz Kundi, Advocate Supreme Court and Muhammad Zahoor Qureshi, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 9th February, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 30‑3‑1992 of the Peshawar High Court, Circuit Bench D.I. Khan, in Civil Revision No. 109/D of 1990). ‑‑‑‑S. 42‑‑‑Oaths Act (X of 1873), S.8‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)‑‑‑Dispute relating to mutations‑‑‑Leave to appeal was granted to consider whether petitioner was never summoned to make statement at the time of attestation of mutations in question; and that the sale of land in question, alleged to have been made by the petitioner in favour of respondents was sought to be proved by two mutations, one of which was sanctioned on 12‑2‑1972 and the other on 23‑1‑1973, extraordinary feature of such mutations being that they purported to witness the sale of the same land; whether both the mutations were fraudulent, for till about ten years later none of them had been entered in the Jamabandi and none of those two mutations was reflected in the consolidation proceedings which admittedly involved land in question; whether the price alleged to have been paid for such valuable land was ridiculously low; and the fact that petitioner had made an offer, that in case his contentions raised herein failed, he would be ready and willing to offer the decision of the long standing dispute through special oath in the true Islamic spirit.
Judgment & Decree
MUHAMMAD AFZAL ZULLAH, CJ.‑‑‑Although the land dispute out of which this petition for leave to appeal arises stands decided by findings of fact, learned counsel has brought to our notice some factors which indeed are disturbing. One, that the petitioner who is present in Court, as asserted by him, was never summoned to make statement at the time of the attestation of the mutations in question. Secondly, that the sale of the suit land alleged to have been made by the petitioner, in favour of the respondents was sought to be proved by two mutations. One was sanctioned on 12‑2‑1972 and the other on 23‑1‑1973. The extraordinary feature of these mutations is that they purported to witness the sale of the same land. Thirdly learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that both the mutations were fraudulent because till about 10 years later none of them had been entered in the Jamabandi. He also supported this contention by asserting that none of those two mutations was reflected in the consolidation proceedings which admittedly involved the land in dispute. Fourthly he contended that the price alleged to have been paid for such valuable land as it was in 1970 is ridiculously low; namely less than a rupee per Marla. And lastly, after a growling session with the petitioner in Court (during the hearing of this petition) during which learned counsel tried to cross‑examine his own client the petitioner stood the test and ultimately made an offer that in case the aforenoted arguments fail, he would be ready and willing to offer the decision of this long‑standing dispute through special Oath in the true Islamic spirit. In the light of what has been stated above we consider it a fit case for grant of leave to appeal. Order accordingly. Learned counsel for the petitioner may give an application to the Registrar with regard to the offer of special Oath. The Registrar shall not wait for the hearing of the appeal. Accordingly, he will in the meanwhile summon both the sides and record their statements on the question of special Oath and administer Oath in accordance with law and the statements made by the parties. The said proceedings shall be placed before the Court when the appeal is taken up for final hearing. AA./K‑219/S Leave granted.