P L D 1966 W (PLP)
Jam. KARAM ALI KHAN‑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 | Jam. KARAM ALI KHAN‑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) (Jam. KARAM ALI KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Dharamdas Moolchand for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 7‑Father gifting land to sons in 1951‑Permission required under S. 8, Sind Act III of 1899 given on 6th July 1959 Gift, held, not completed before imposition of Martial Law‑Order refusing validation of gift not interfered.
Judgment & Decree
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 7‑Father gifting land to sons in 1951‑Permission required under S. 8, Sind Act III of 1899 given on 6th July 1959 Gift, held, not completed before imposition of Martial Law‑Order refusing validation of gift not interfered. Dharamdas Moolchand for Petitioner. This is a revision filed against an order dated the 6th of August 1959, passed by Land Commissioner, Hyderabad whereby he rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner against an order passed by the Deputy Land Commissioner, Hyderabad, who had refused to‑validate the gift of the land in question made by the father of the petitioner. The facts of the case are that the petitioner's father, Nawab Jan Muhammad Khan, held the land in question on restricted tenure under provisions of Sind Act III of 1899. He made a gift of the land in question in favour of his son in 1951. No permission of the Collector under section 8 of the Sind Act III of 1899 was obtained before the imposition of Martial Law. Such a permission was given only on the 6th of July 1959. The petitioner requested the Deputy Land Commissioner to validate this gift but the request was refused. The petitioner wept in appeal to the Land Commissioner but it was also dismissed. Hence this revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. The gift could not be complete before the necessary permission under section 8 of the Sind Act III of 1899 was given by the Collector. Such a permission was given after the imposition of Martial Law. The gift was not, therefore, complete when Martial Law was imposed. The creation of any interests or rights after the 8th day, of October 1958, is not permissible under paragraph 7 of the Martial Law Regulation No.
64. In these circumstances, no interference with the concurrent findings of the Deputy Land Commissioner and the Land Commissioner is called for. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. S. Q. Revision dismissed.