P L D 1966 W (PLP)
Syed ABDUS SATTAR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | Syed ABDUS SATTAR‑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: 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) (Syed ABDUS SATTAR‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 9(f) Gift of land made after 14th August 1947‑Donor alive -Concession permissible under paragraph 9(f) not available to donee.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Sadiq for Petitioner. This revision has been filed against an order dated the 29th of July 1959, passed ~y the Land Commissioner, D. I. Khan, whereby he upheld the order of the Deputy Land Commissioner who had refused to allow the petitioner to avail of the concessions permissible' under para. 9 (f) of the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. The facts of the case are that, at the time of the scrutiny of Forms LC.‑I and LC.‑II, it transpired that the petitioner was a donee who had received a gift after the 14th of August 1947, and the donor was still alive. He was, therefore, refused the availability of concessions permissible under para. 9 (f) of the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. At the same time, the Deputy Land Commissioner passed certain orders about compensation. The petitioner went in appeal. So far as compensation was concerned, the Land Commissioner accepted the appeal but, so far as the concessions permissible under para. 9 (f ) were concerned, he rejected it. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. His main contention is that this is a special case as the property was gifted to the petitioner as a result of family settlement in accordance with the established custom of the family. The fact, however, remains that it was gift made after the 14th of August 1947. The petitioner is a donee and the donor is still alive. He cannot, therefore, avail of the concessions permissible under para. 9 (f) of the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. No interference is called for. The revision fails and is rejected hereby. S. Q. Revision rejected.