P L D 1965 W (PLP)
GOHAR AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DIN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | GOHAR AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DIN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Consolidation of holdings |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Consolidation of holdings as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1965 W (PLP) (GOHAR AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus DIN MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Mortgaged area‑Request for settlement of whole mortgaged area in one block in particular square likely to result in dislocation of persons already settled and having proprietary rights in area‑Not acceded to.
Judgment & Decree
Mortgaged area‑Request for settlement of whole mortgaged area in one block in particular square likely to result in dislocation of persons already settled and having proprietary rights in area‑Not acceded to. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 5th May 1962, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Consolida tion), Multan, whereby he rejected the revision petition filed by the petitioners.
2. The facts of the case are, that with the consent of the petitioner, Gohar Ali, the Assistant Consolidation Officer gave him land under the Consolidation Scheme in this village. Gohar Ali, petitioner thumb marked the Khata Taqsim. The petitioner preferred an appeal before the Additional Deputy Commissioner (Consolidation). The appeal was rejected. They came in revision to the Additional Commissioner (Consolidation) which was also dismissed. Hence this revision petition. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and examined the record. The petitioner wishes to get his mortgaged area along with the proprietary land. It is not possible. The next point raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that his mortgaged area has been split up into two blocks. This has some force. There is a possibility of giving him a consolidated block for his mortgagee rights in Square No. 33, but he is not willing to have one block there. His request is that the whole of the mortgaged area should be given to him in one block in Square No.
136. Such a request will mean dislocation of persons who .have been settled in Square No. 136 and who have proprietary rights in that. It cannot, therefore, be acceded to. In this connection he earned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the Government has now decided that mortgagees will also get proprietary rights and the petitioner should be given land for mortgagee rights near the proprietary area. It has already been laid down that on this account dislocation will not be allowed. This contention has, therefore, no force. In the circumstances I see no justification for any interference with the concurrent findings of the three Consolidation authorities below and the revision petition is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Petition dismissed: