P L D (Rev (PLP)
Mst. AISHA BEGUM‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D (Rev (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | Hafiz Abdul Majid, F. C. R. |
| Parties | Mst. AISHA BEGUM‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D (Rev (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D (Rev (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: Hafiz Abdul Majid, F. C. R..
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D (Rev (PLP) (Mst. AISHA BEGUM‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD YOUSAF‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Sh. Nazir Ahmad, for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Mutation‑Regarding gift of land, sanctioned‑‑‑‑Gift subsequently revoked‑Mutation in respect of revocation will not be granted until decision of competent Court that gift was rightfully revoked.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID, F. C.--‑It appears that the petitioner had gifted her land in two transactions to the respondent. These transactions were made the basis for entering two mutations Nos. 2713 and 2715. These were accepted by the Revenue Officer on the 4th June, 1952. Later on, the petitioner executed two deeds revoking the said gifts. These deeds were executed in September, 1952. One mutation was entered on the basis of these two revocation deeds and this mutation has been rejected by the order of the Commissioner, Lahore Division. The petitioner suggests that the order rejecting the mutation of revocation of gifts should be revised by me. Her argument is that the original gifts had not been accom panied by a transfer of possession. This argument cannot have any force when we look at the" fact that the two original mutations of gift were duly sanctioned by the Revenue Officer in June, 1952, in the presence of the donor and the donee. If the donor later oz decides co execute any deeds revoking the gifts she cannot expect Revenue Officers to take her wishes into account in preparing their records‑of rights. Until a competent court gives a decision that the gifts had been rightfully revoked, no Revenue authority cant alter the position that the land stands in the name of the donee. If the petitioner had asked for revision of the orders initially sanctioning the mutations of gift, she could have been heard in detail on the subject of transfer of possession. She has, however, not attacked those two orders sanctioning mutation, of gift. Her case, therefore, automatically fails. The learned counsel for the petitioner has further men tioned that a dispute regarding the possession .of this land has been in existence between the donor and the donnee and has also come to the notice of the Revenue Officers both Assistant Collector and Collector. I have not been asked by the petitioner to declare that any lower Revenue Officer's order in respect of that dispute is or is not in accordance with the law: I need not, therefore,, consider this subject in detail. The result is that I do not find any justification for issuing notice to the other party. The petition for revision is rejected." Announced. A. H. Petition rejected.