P L D 1966 W (PLP)
GHULAM QADIR‑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 | GHULAM QADIR‑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) (GHULAM QADIR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 11- Gifts of land in favour of sister's daughters‑Donees not entitled to inherit at time succession opened to donor‑Permission sought by donor for making such gifts, held, rightly rejected.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 11- Gifts of land in favour of sister's daughters‑Donees not entitled to inherit at time succession opened to donor‑Permission sought by donor for making such gifts, held, rightly rejected. Nobody is present but I have considered the appeal on merits. This is an appeal filed against an order dated the 26th of June 1959, passed by the Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, whereby he rejected the request of the appellant to make gifts of the land in question in favour of his sister's daughters. The facts of the case are that the appellant made an appli cation under paragraph 11 of the Martial Law Regulation No. 64 seeking permission to make the gifts mentioned above. The Land Commissioner held that the donee was not entitled to inherit at the time succession opened to the appellant. The request was, therefore, rejected. Hence this appeal. I have considered the case on merits. None of the donees was a person entitled to inherit when succession opened to the appellant. The request was, therefore, rightly rejected. The, appeal fails and is rejected hereby. The appellant and the counsel to be informed. S. Q, Appeal rejected.