P L D 1965 W (PLP)
Mst. FAZAL BIBI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Mst. FAZAL BIBI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Mutation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation‑ 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) (Mst. FAZAL BIBI‑Petitioner Versus Mst. NAWAB BIBI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hidayat Ali Taib for Petitioner.
- Mian Muhammad Rafiq for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Revenue Officers have to decide in summary way and are not expected to proceed as civil Courts‑Party supported by documents made available from Central Record and oral evidence‑Opposite‑party supported by copy of pedigree‑table brought from India but not certified by Pakistan High Commissioner in that country‑Additional Commissioner reversing, in second appeal, order of Collector in appeal preferring claim of opposite party‑Order of Additional Commissioner not interfered with Documents, though possibly open to valid technical objections, can form basis of decision when supported by oral evidence.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Muhammad Rafiq for Respondent. This is a revision filed against an order dated 15‑10‑1964 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Lahore, whereby the second appeal preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that in the first instance an inheritance mutation, in respect of the property left by Nawab deceased, was sanctioned in favour of asst. Nawab Bibi. Mst. Fazal Bibi went in appeal to the Collector and the case was remanded. After remand, the Assistant Collector II Grade again attested the mutation in favour of Mst. Nawab Bibi. Mst. Fazal Bibi went in appeal before the Collector, who accepted it on 29‑2‑1964. Mst. Nawab Bibi went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner, who accepted it. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and examined the record. Mst. Nawab Bibi claims the property s the daughter of one Amir Khan who is stated to be the brother of Pir Khan, father of Nawab deceased. On the other hand Mst. Fazal Bibi claims it as a widow of Abad Ali son of Nawab deceased, and on her behalf it is stated that Pir Khan did not have any brother. Mst. Fazal Bibi's claim was based on the evidence available in the Central Record Room at Lahore which was also supported by oral evidence: On the other hand the learned Commissioner relied on a pedigree‑table which was stated to have been brought from India. This was supported by oral evidence as well. The learned counsel for Mst. Fazal Bibi has contended that no reliance should have been placed on the document brought from India because that had not been certified by the High Commissioner for Pakistan in India this may be a valid technical objection but when such documents are supported by oral evidence, the Revenue Officer can give a decision on their basis. It is true that as pointed out by the learned counsel for Mst. Fazal Bibi, her claim was also supported by the documents available in the Central Record Room and was supported by oral evidence, but I find that documentary evidence in her case was complete. At any rate, Revenue Officers have to decide such questions in a summary manner and are not expected to proceed as a civil Court. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case I am of the opinion that the learned Additional Commissioner was justified in interfering. There is, therefore, no force in this revision which fails and is dismissed. A. H. Petition dismissed.