P L D 1966 W (PLP)
QAIM DIN‑Petitioner Versus AMIR DIN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | QAIM DIN‑Petitioner Versus AMIR DIN‑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, 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) (QAIM DIN‑Petitioner Versus AMIR DIN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Abdur Rashid for Petitioner.
- Maulvi Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑Inheritance of land allotted to displaced person from prescribed territory‑Mutation to be sanctioned by Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner under para. 67, West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme ‑ Mutation, sanctioned by Assistant Collector, 11 Grade, having no power to sanction mutation‑Illegal.
Judgment & Decree
Maulvi Ghulam Ali Alvi for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 20th of November 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was dismissed. The facts of the case are that on the death of Haji a displaced person from the prescribed territory, a mutation of inheritance was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector II Grade. The respondent went in appeal to the Collector who accepted it. The petitioner then went in revision to the Additional Commis sioner, Lahore, but it was rejected. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. I sent for the original record with a view to ascertaining whether the mutation was sanctioned by a revenue officer or by an Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner. The sanctioning officer has signed the mutation as Assistant Collector, II Grade. It is true as alleged by the learned counsel for the respondent that the Assistant Collector II Grade also enjoyed powers of Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, but in this case I find that the sanctioning officer passed orders considering himself to be an Assistant Collector, II Grade. Sanctioning of such mutation is to be done under the instructions contained in paragraph 67 of the West, Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The orders have to be passed by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner. The sanctioning order was therefore wrong from the very beginning. It is true that an appeal from an order passed by the Assistant Collector, II Grade could be lodged before the Collector, but the learned Collector did not examine the question as to whether the Assistant Collector, II Grade could sanction such a mutation. A revision was filed before the Additional Commissioner because the appeal had been disposed of by the Collector. Here again the learned Additional Commissioner did not go into the question as to whether the original order sanctioning the mutation was correct or not. The legal position is quite clear. This was a case relating to the succession of a right holder from the prescribed territory and inheritance mutation could only be sanctioned by the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner, and Assistant Collector, II Grade had no power to dispose of such cases. In these circumstances I accept the revision, set aside all the orders passed so far. The case will now be sent up to the Assistant Rehabilitation Commissioner concerned for disposal. K. M. A. Case remanded.