P L D 1965 W (PLP)
REHMAT ULLAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AISHA BIBI‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | REHMAT ULLAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AISHA BIBI‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Rehabilitation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Rehabilitation‑ 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) (REHMAT ULLAH AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. AISHA BIBI‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Ghulam Ali AM for Petitioners.
- Rana Abdur Rahim for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Settlement Scheme, 1957, Part 1, para. 14 read with correction slip issued by Rehabilitation Commissioner under Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, 1952, on 14‑10‑1956‑Gift of allotted land by allottee to third party‑Valid‑Transfers of land by allottees not governed by Rehabilitation Ordinance, 1956 or Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance, 1949.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Ghulam Ali AM for Petitioners. Rana Abdur Rahim for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 2nd of March 1964, passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that Imam Din, a deceased refugee right holder, gifted the land in dispute to the petitioner and the Patwari recorded a report in his Roznamcha on 4‑12‑56. on the basis of which a mutation was sanctioned on 22‑5‑1957, in favour of the petitioners. The respondent went in appeal to the Deputy ‑Rehabilitation Commissioner, but it was rejected. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner and the case was remanded. After remand, 'a mutation was again sanctioned. The respondent again went in appeal to the Collector but it was rejected. He then filed a revision before the Additional Commissioner and it was accepted. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The transfers in respect of allottees are governed by para. 14 of the Part I of the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. It is true that the scheme was framed in March 1957 but prior to this scheme, allotments have been made under the 1952 scheme. When the question as to whether refugee allottees could alienate the land given to them was considered, the Rehabilitation Commissioner issued a correction slip on the 14th, October 1956, whereby the allottees were permitted to alienate their rights in land. This gift was made after the issue of this correction slip and was, therefore, quite valid. The learned counsel for the respondent has referred me to the Rehabilitation Ordinance, 1956 and the Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance, 1949. The transfers of allottees' rights are not governed by either of these two Ordinances. These deal with the property while the correction slip mentioned above relates to the transfer of the interest of the allottees. This gift, is, therefore, only in respect of those rights which the transferee) held and the only effect of this gift would be that the donees will step into the shoes of donor. In these circumstances, I partially accept the revision and direct that the mutation No. 50 should be reconsidered and sanctioned in the light of the observations given above. A. H.??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.