P L D 1966 W (PLP)
FARID‑Petitioner Versus BAKHU‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | FARID‑Petitioner Versus BAKHU‑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) (FARID‑Petitioner Versus BAKHU‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Rana Abdul Hakeem for Petitioner.
- Ghulam Mohsin for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms, Regulation, 1959, para. 19 --Tenant in cultivating possession of land measuring 220 kanals 14 marlas‑Brother and nephews living with and assisting him in cultivation‑Land Commissioner allowing only `subsistence holding' and giving rest to others‑Held, entire land must go to tenant in cultivating possession, his brother and nephews as co‑sharers in joint khata.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms, Regulation, 1959, para. 19 --Tenant in cultivating possession of land measuring 220 kanals 14 marlas‑Brother and nephews living with and assisting him in cultivation‑Land Commissioner allowing only `subsistence holding' and giving rest to others‑Held, entire land must go to tenant in cultivating possession, his brother and nephews as co‑sharers in joint khata. Rana Abdul Hakeem for Petitioner. Ghulam Mohsin for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order, dated the 7th of November 1961, passed by the Land Commissioner, Multan whereby the revision filed by Farid petitioner along with others was rejected. The facts of the case are that Farid was in cultivating posses sion of 220 kanals and 14 marlas of land. These were entered in Register L.C. IX. He stated that his brother, Bahadur, and his nephews, Hussain and Yara were helping him in cultivation. He was, however, given only 12 acres in the first instance and subsequently, in the upgrading scheme, an additional area of 6 acres was given to him. The rest of the area was given to the respondents. Farid along with his brothers and nephews, went in appeal to the Deputy Land Commissioner but it was rejected He then filed a revision before the Land Commissioner but he also rejected it. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have examined the record. It is established that Farid petitioner was in cultivating possession of 220 kanals and 14 marlas of land. He has a brother and two nephews, all male adults living with him. In these circumstances, he was entitled to retain the entire land in his possession. I, therefore, accept the revision and direct that the land which was in the cultivating possession of Farid, petitioner and details of which were given in L.C. IX should be restored to Farid, Bahadur, Hussain and Yara. They should be given this land as co‑sharers in a joint khata. S. Q. Petition accepted.