P L D 1966 W (PLP)
KARIM BAKHSH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. JANNAT BIBI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue West Pakistan |
| Parties | KARIM BAKHSH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. JANNAT BIBI‑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, Member, Board of Revenue 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) (KARIM BAKHSH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. JANNAT BIBI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Syed Abid Hussain for Petitioners Nos. 2 to 10.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Grant‑Widow getting grant of land as posthumous award for service rendered by her husband‑Such grant comes to an end only on death or remarriage‑Widow not limited owner under custom‑Succession would be governed by Colonization of Govern ment Lands (Punjab) Act (V of 1912) after her death or re‑marriage.
Judgment & Decree
Syed Abid Hussain for Petitioners Nos. 2 to
10. Nemo for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 15th of December 1964, passed by Commissioner, Sargodha, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that Mst. Jannat Bibi got a grant of the land in dispute as a posthumous award for the service rendered by her husband. On the 18th of April 1963, her life interest was terminated by the Assistant Collector, II Grade, on the presumption that the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1962 was applicable to such cases. The respondent went in appeal to the Collector, but it was dismissed. She then filed a revision before the Commissioner and it was accepted. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. The legal position is quite clear. The respondent got the land in dispute as a grant till she died or re‑married. The intention of the grant was quite clear that, so long as she was alive, and did not re‑marry there would be no disturbance in her enjoying the profits from the land in dispute. It is true that the conditions laid down by the GHQ for the grant are similar to the provisions of the Punjab Colonization of Government Land Act but simply because the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat Application Act of 1962 has been made applicable to the Coloni zation of Government Lands Act, it will not be appropriate to end the life interest of the respondent. If she dies or re‑marries, the succession to the grant will, of course, be covered by the Punjab Colonization of Government Lands Act as amended by the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, but so long as she is alive and does not re‑marry, no inter ference is justified. In these circumstances, the second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K.M. A. Revision dismissed.