P L D 1964 W (PLP)
WALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus Mst. GHAFOORI ETC.‑ — Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue, |
| Parties | WALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus Mst. GHAFOORI ETC.‑ — Respondents |
| Primary Law | ORDER |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: ORDER as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Nasir Ahmad, Member Board of Revenue,.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1964 W (PLP) (WALI MUHAMMAD AND OTHERS‑ — Petitioners Versus Mst. GHAFOORI ETC.‑ — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Ali Khan Sherwani for Petitioners.
- Bashir Ahmad Khan for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February 1964.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Mutation‑
Succession opening out before enforcement of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)‑Mutation in regard to children of a pre‑deceased daughter should be decided in accordance with law then applicable. (b) Succession Land
allotted to refugee right‑holders‑Succession to be governed by ordinary law and not by provisions of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. This case relates to the succession of Shadi who died on 21‑1‑1961 in village Jhamke, district Sheikhupura. He left behind him Wali Muhammad a son and Zainib a daughter through two different wives and a mutation was attested accordingly in their favour on 30‑11‑
62. He had another daughter Mst. Jeeman who pre‑deceased him, and her children the present respondents Ghafoor and Mst. Ghafoor went in appeal to the Collector who dismissed it. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, interfered in revision and held that the Family Laws Ordinance had come into force from 15‑7‑61 and the mutation should therefore has a beer decided in accordance with it. Succession had actually opened out on 21‑1‑61 and the date of deciding the mutation is immaterial. At the time succession opened out the Family Laws Ordinance was not in force and succession should be governed by the law then applicable and not the Family Laws Ordinance which is as brought on the statute later. The second plea taken before me is that succession should be governed b paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. This paragraph refers to right‑holders i.e. to claimants before the actual allotment of land takes place. Subsequent to the allotment they become allottees and are no longer right‑holders or claimants. The accepted law now is that when land has been allotted to refugee right‑holder succession is governed by the ordinary law of the land an t is not to take place in accordance with the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. I would accordingly set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Collector. S. Q. Revision accepted.
Judgment & Decree
(b) Succession Land
allotted to refugee right‑holders‑Succession to be governed by ordinary law and not by provisions of West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. Hamid Ali Khan Sherwani for Petitioners. Bashir Ahmad Khan for Respondents. Date of hearing: 27th February 1964. This case relates to the succession of Shadi who died on 21‑1‑1961 in village Jhamke, district Sheikhupura. He left behind him Wali Muhammad a son and Zainib a daughter through two different wives and a mutation was attested accordingly in their favour on 30‑11‑
62. He had another daughter Mst. Jeeman who pre‑deceased him, and her children the present respondents Ghafoor and Mst. Ghafoor went in appeal to the Collector who dismissed it. The learned Additional Commissioner, however, interfered in revision and held that the Family Laws Ordinance had come into force from 15‑7‑61 and the mutation should therefore has a beer decided in accordance with it. Succession had actually opened out on 21‑1‑61 and the date of deciding the mutation is immaterial. At the time succession opened out the Family Laws Ordinance was not in force and succession should be governed by the law then applicable and not the Family Laws Ordinance which is as brought on the statute later. The second plea taken before me is that succession should be governed b paragraph 46 of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. This paragraph refers to right‑holders i.e. to claimants before the actual allotment of land takes place. Subsequent to the allotment they become allottees and are no longer right‑holders or claimants. The accepted law now is that when land has been allotted to refugee right‑holder succession is governed by the ordinary law of the land an t is not to take place in accordance with the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. I would accordingly set aside the order passed by the learned Additional Commissioner and restore that of the Collector. S. Q. Revision accepted.