P L D 1964 W (PLP)
NAWAB DIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM FATIMAH‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1964 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAWAB DIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM FATIMAH‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Succession‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1964 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Succession‑ 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 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 1964 W (PLP) (NAWAB DIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. GHULAM FATIMAH‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
Allotment of evacuee land to refugees is in nature of grants by Rehabilitation Authorities‑Such grants do not carry same rights and liabilities as land owned and abandoned by grantees in India.
Judgment & Decree
Allotment of evacuee land to refugees is in nature of grants by Rehabilitation Authorities‑Such grants do not carry same rights and liabilities as land owned and abandoned by grantees in India. Umer Daraz Ali v. Khurshid Ali and others P L D 1960 Lah. 834 and Syed Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and four others P L D 1962 S C 42 ref. Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman for Petitioners. Ghulam Fatimah respondent had in her possession certain lands in District Hoshiarpur (India) and after her migration to Pakistan she was allotted the land now in dispute situated in Chair No. 91/613 District Lyallpur. She entered into matrimony and on the ground that she was a limited owner in India i.e. held the land till her death or marriage, the petitioners, who are collaterals of Imam Din her father, have claimed succession. The Assistant Collector decided in favour of the collaterals but the Collector intervened in appeal, as the collaterals were not able to adduce any evidence that Ghulam Fatimah had only a limited interest in the property. Besides, this issue had not been raised at the earliest as she had married about 20 years ago. The learned Additional Commissioner has maintained this order in appeal. The main point for consideration is whether Ghulam Fatimah has succeeded in Pakistan to property which she had left in India or has she now been made a grant by the Rehabilitation Autho rities and which grant is not in the nature of succession to the property abandoned by her in India. It has been held by the High Court in Umer Daraz Ali v. Khurshid Ali and others (P L D 1960 Lah. 834) and by the Supreme Court in Syed Abdur Rashid v. Pakistan and four others (P L D 1962 S C42) that these allotments to refugees are grants made by the Rehabilitation Authorities and are not in the nature of inheritance or succession on account of the property which was held by the grantees in India. The learned counsel has tried to argue that once these allotments or grants are confirmed then it would be open to the Revenue Officers or the Courts to go into the nature of the property owned in India and decide questions of alienation, succession etc. in respect of the property now allotted on that basis. The High Court and the Supreme Court are not of the view that the grants made in Pakistan by the Rehabilitation Authorities carry with them the same rights and liabilities as the land owned by the grantee in India and subsequently abondoned. I would accordingly decline to ‑interfere in the orders passed and reject the petition. S. Q. Petition rejected.