E L D 1966 W (PLP)
MIR GHULAM ALI KHAN TALPUR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
| Citation | E L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Chief Land Commissioner, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MIR GHULAM ALI KHAN TALPUR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in E 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 E 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: E L D 1966 W (PLP) (MIR GHULAM ALI KHAN TALPUR‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Pirzada Abdus Sattar for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959, para. 7(2) read with para. 25‑Gifts of land to minor daughters‑Validation- Justification sought on considerations of family custom, donor's heart attack and saving property from death duty not established-Concurrent findings of local officers and Land Commissioner leading to refusal of validation‑Not interfered.
Judgment & Decree
Actually six appeals should have been filed but I have consi dered the case on merits on the distinct understanding that five more appeals will be filed duly stamped. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant. Besides the point raised by the local officers and the learned Land Commis sioner, the main question for determination is whether any explanation is forthcoming for the appellant gifting 4,964.3 acres to six donees on one and the same date. There could be no question of evasion of agricultural income‑tax because no such tax was imposed in the former Province of Sind. The learned counsel for the appellant has tried to justify these gifts on the following considerations :‑‑ (a) there was a custom in the family to gift land to minor dependents and other relatives; (b) attempts were made to save the property from the operation of the Death Duty Act; and (c) Mir Ghulam Ali Khan had a heart attack in 1954 and wanted to provide for those minor sops and daughters; As regards (a) above, it is admitted that Mir Ghulam Ali Khan came into possession of property in 1953 after the death of Mir Husain Bakhsh. It is conceded that no gifts were made by him to his dependent children between .1953 and beginning of 1957. So far as Death Duty Act is concerned, the Act came into force in 1950 but probably full facts were realized in 1956. Even after the full facts had been realized, Mir Ghulam Ali Khan did not gift the property in favour of his sons and daughters before 1957. So far as the heart attack is concerned, Mir Ghulam Ali Khan had the first attack in 1954 and, if the intention was to make pro vision for his minor sons and daughters on this consideration, some action would have been taken by Mir Sahib in the years 1954, 1955 and 1956. In view of these considerations and the points mentioned by the local officers and the learned Land Commissioner, I do not find any justification for interfering with their concurrent findings. The appeal fails and is rejected hereby. S. Q. Appeal rejected.