P L D 1966 W (PLP)
IBRAHIM‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AISHA BIBI AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | IBRAHIM‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AISHA BIBI AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
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) (IBRAHIM‑Petitioner Versus Mst. AISHA BIBI AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Bashir Hussain for Petitioner.
- Akhtar Ali and Asghar Khadam for Respondents Nos. 2 and 3.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Mutation‑Oral gift‑Mutation entered after death of donor‑No explanation as to why mutation was not entered during lifetime of donor‑Mutation not to be sanctioned. (b) Mutation‑Gift‑Time‑barred appeal against order of mutation entertained and delay condoned‑Not interfered in revision.
Judgment & Decree
Bashir Hussain for Petitioner. Akhtar Ali and Asghar Khadam for Respondents Nos. 2 and
3. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 17th of January 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Bahawalpur, whereby the second appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that the alleged donor, Shahabuddin (deceased) is stated to have made a statement before a Revenue Officer on 11‑8‑1958, whereby the land in dispute was gifted to the petitioner. No mutation was entered during the life‑time of the deceased, who expired in early 1959. A mutation was, however, entered on 18‑5‑1960, and sanctioned on 18‑6‑1960. The respondents went in appeal to the Collector who condoned the delay and accepted it. The petitioner went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner, but it was dismissed. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. No satisfactory explanation has been given as to why the mutation was not entered during the life time of the donor. The learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that a mutation was to be sanctioned only after certain rehabilitation fees had been paid. He has, however, not pointed out the instruction under which such payment would be necessary before the entry of the mutation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the Collector entertained a time‑barred appeal. In revisional proceedings, he wishes me to interfere with the discretion exercised by the learned Collector. Such a request cannot be granted at this stage. The learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn my attention to the fact that the donor made a statement during his life time. This statement was made before another Revenue Officer and no convincing reason has been advanced as to why the mutation was not entered soon after the alleged statement was given. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any interference. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.