P L D 1966 W (PLP)
ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑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) (ABDULLAH AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Siddique Bhatti for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 19 read with Sales Scheme (Land Reforms)‑Revised instructions‑Brothers of cultivating tenants also entitled to get area equal to subsis tence holding.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Siddique Bhatti for Petitioners. This is a second revision filed against an order, dated the 5th of April 1963, passed by the Land Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that the petitioners were in possession of 20 acres of land, but under the Sales Scheme they were given only 11 acres and the balance area (8 acres) was withdrawn from them by the Assistant Land Commissioner. They went in appeal to the Deputy Land Commissioner, but it was rejected. They then filed a revision before the Land Commissioner, Lahore, but it was also dismissed. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and have examined the record. It is established that the petitioners were in possession of 20 acres of land. The Assistant Land Commissioner, the Deputy Land Commissioner and the Land Commissioner were influenced by the instructions issued by the Chief Land Commissioner whereby only adult lineal descendants were entitled to purchase land under the Sales Scheme. This was not the original intention of the Land Commission and the instructions issued by the Chief Land Commissioner were not therefore, quite correct. Revised instructions are being issued under which a brother is also entitled to get an area equal to a subsistence holding: These instructions do not have any retrospective effect, but it has been decided that pending cases will be decided in the light of new instructions. Under these instructions, the three brothers are' entitled to retain an area equal to three times the subsistence holding or a smaller area which may be in their possession. In these circumstances, the petitioners are entitled to retain the entire area in their possession. I, therefore, accept the revision and. direct that Killa Nos. 18 to 23 of Square No: 28 and Killa Nos. 23/2, 24 and 25 of Square No. 33 which have been withdrawn from them shall be restored to them. S. Q, Petition accepted.