P L D 1966 W (PLP)
BIBI SARWAR SULTAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Ahsan‑ud‑Din, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | BIBI SARWAR SULTAN‑Petitioner 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: Ahsan‑ud‑Din, 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) (BIBI SARWAR SULTAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 7‑Gifts of land on `ariatan' basis‑Mutations sanctioned long before promulgation of Martial Law‑Donees, although holding restricted rights, entered as proprietors, paying' land revenue and other Government dues‑Donor absolved from payment of agricultural income‑tax in respect of land in dispute‑No likelihood of donor's exercising option of withdrawing gifts from donees‑Gifts ordered to be validated.
Judgment & Decree
(4) Bibi Shazadi v. State (Revision No. 312). (5) Malik Ata Muhammad v State (Revision No. 313). (6) Bibi Sahib Sultan v. State (Revision No. 334). The facts are that Sardar Muhammad Nawaz Khan of Kot Fateh Khan gifted certain areas to the petitioners on `Ariatan' basis for which the mutations were sanctioned long before the promulgation of the Martial Law. The petitioners submitted their respective declaration forms before Deputy Land Commis sioner, Attock, who vide his orders, dated 2nd July 1959, held that the petitioners had restricted rights because they could not transfer, mortgage of gift the areas in question and could only enjoy usufruct as long as the donor permitted it. In view of this, the Deputy Land Commissioner did not validate these gifts and directed that the area in dispute be considered as the ownership of the donor and resumed in favour of the Government.
2. The petitioners preferred their respective appeals against these orders before the Land Commissioner, Peshawar, who vide his orders dated 2nd September 1959, upheld the decision of the Deputy Land Commissioner. Against this order of the Land Commissioner, Peshawar, the present six revision petitions have been lodged before me.
3. Since the mutations of "Ariatan" sanctioned in favour of the petitioners conferred only temporary rights on them, my predecessor referred this case to the Land Commission. The case has now been received back for decision. I have gone through the, record of the case. Accordingly I feel that apart from the fact that all these mutations were sanctioned long before the imposition of the Martial Law, they should be validated on the following grounds :‑ (i) The donees are being shown as proprietors in the Revenue Records and are paying land revenue and other Government dues, since then. (ii) The Financial Commissioner absolved the donor from the payment of Agricultural Income‑tax for the land in dispute. (iii) Evidently, the donor is not likely to exercise his option of withdrawing these gifts from the petitioners, especially when he has kept for himself the maximum ceiling under the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. In view of the above observations, I accept all these revision petitions and direct that the gifts in question should be validated. The holdings of the donees would, however, be subject to the limits laid down by the Martial Law Regulation No. 64, on individual holdings. The petitioners should be informed accordingly. S. Q. Petitions accepted.