P L D 1966 W (PLP)
MAJEED KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. HASSAN JAN‑Respondent
| Citation | P L D 1966 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | MAJEED KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. HASSAN JAN‑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, Member, Board of Revenue, 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) (MAJEED KHAN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Mst. HASSAN JAN‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din for Petitioners.
- Rao Tufail Ahmad for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme, para. 46 -Allotment of land by Rehabilitation Department in favour of widow on basis of her husband's claim‑To be considered as a grant‑Succession governed by para. 46.
Judgment & Decree
Ch. Qamar‑ud‑Din for Petitioners. Rao Tufail Ahmad for Respondent. This is a second revision filed against an order, dated the 27th of May 1964, passed by Additional Commissioner, Lahore, whereby the revision preferred by the respondent was accepted. The facts of the case are that the respondent got land under the Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme on the basis of a claim which had been put for her husband. The allotment was made to her. After the enforcement of Muslim Personal Law Shariat Applica tion Act of 1962, Amin Khan petitioner moved the Patwari for entry of mutation for the termination of interest of the respondent as a limited owner. The Assistant Collector, End Grade accordingly sanctioned the mutation by which the respon dent got one‑fourth of the property and the rest was given to the reversioners (the petitioners). She went in appeal to the Collector, but the appeal was dismissed. She then moved the Additional Commissioner in revision which was accepted. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. It is established that the land was given to Mst. Hassan Jan. It has, therefore, to be treated as a grant. This view has been held not only by my learned predecessor but also myself in a number of cases. Once it is considered as a grant, succession will be covered by para. 46 of the West Pakistan Rehabilitation Settlement Scheme. The learned counsel for the petitioner wishes that, in this case, provisions of para. 46 (a) should be applied. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. If the respondent's husband had got land and he had died before the enforcement of the Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act of 1962 and she had succeeded as a widow by custom, paragraph 46(a) would have been applicable. In this case, however, it was she who got the grant. Para. 46 (a), is, therefore, not applicable to this case. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any inter ference. The second revision fails and is dismissed hereby. K. M. A. Revision dismissed.