P L D 1965 W (PLP)
ALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus GAHNA ETC.‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | ALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus GAHNA ETC.‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Mutation‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation‑ 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) (ALI MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus GAHNA ETC.‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Ashraf Ali for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Party's predecessors‑in‑interest getting land in 1931 from petitioner's father on adhlapi terms for development, in accord ance with which party's ancestors were to get 4th share of land in question‑Party delaying application for mutation of such share and mutation sanctioned in 1959, petitioner objecting that party was tenant‑at‑will and not holders on adhlapi terms‑Revenue records not bearing out such contention‑Delay in circumstances of case no justification for rejection of mutation‑Case, held did not involve any complicated question of law or facts so as to require reference to civil Court.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Anwar Buttar for Appellant. Sh. Ashraf Ali for Respondents. This is a revision petition filed against an order dated the 10th of. December 1963 passed by the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan, whereby the appeal preferred by the respondents was accepted. The facts of the case are that the land in dispute belonged to Khanan father of Ali Muhammad petitioner. In 1931 it was given to the predecessor‑in‑interest of the respondents for development on adhlapi terms, in accordance with which the respondents were to get with share of the land in question. The respondents applied for the sanctioning of a mutation and mutation was sanctioned by the Assistant Collector II Grade on 1‑12‑1959, where-under with share was mutated in favour of the respondents. The petitioner went in appeal to the Collector and it was accepted. The respondents then went in second appeal to the Additional Commissioner (Revenue), Multan who accepted it and set aside the orders passed by the Collector. The petitioner has now come up in revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His main contention is that the land was not given on adhlapi terms but the respondents' predecessors were only tenants‑at‑will. This is not supported by the revenue records. At any rate the well exists and the petitioner was given a chance to lead evidence in support of his denial. The learned Collector was influenced by the consideration that the respondents did not apply for the sanctioning of the mutation earlier. This was considered by the learned Commissioner as a ground which would not justify the A rejection of the mutation. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred me to a number of rulings to show that in this case a complicated question of facts and law was involved and the Assistant Collector II Grad should have referred the respondent to the civil Court. In the circumstances of the case I am not prepared to accept this contention. The material available with the Assistant Collector II Grade was sufficient to enable him to give a decision as a Revenue Officer and he did so. In these circumstances, I do not see any justification for interference. The revision fails and is rejected. A. H. Petition rejected.