P L D 1965 W (PLP)
SARDAR KHAN AHD OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR AND OTHERS‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1965 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | ---‑‑Sale of 6/7th share of a Khasra No. from M to D --Mutation sanctioned‑Collector on inspection report of Revenue Assistant allowing Review for finding out whether D was an owner in estate as well as, whether sale did not contravene provisions of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (C. M. L. A's.) No. 64‑Revenue Officer reviewing mutation simply rejecting same, in absence of D, on basis of statement of M that he had not made the sale to D‑‑M subsequently, also pleading that after Review there was a second sale to D‑Held, that order rejecting mutation was irregular, and being on mere statement of M who had already admitted that he had sold land in question to D, was not justified‑Concurrent orders of Collector and Com missioner below not interfered with. |
| Bench Members | I. U. Khan, Member, Board of Revenue, West Pakistan |
| Parties | SARDAR KHAN AHD OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR AND OTHERS‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Mutation |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Mutation as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1965 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the ---‑‑Sale of 6/7th share of a Khasra No. from M to D --Mutation sanctioned‑Collector on inspection report of Revenue Assistant allowing Review for finding out whether D was an owner in estate as well as, whether sale did not contravene provisions of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation (C. M. L. A's.) No. 64‑Revenue Officer reviewing mutation simply rejecting same, in absence of D, on basis of statement of M that he had not made the sale to D‑‑M subsequently, also pleading that after Review there was a second sale to D‑Held, that order rejecting mutation was irregular, and being on mere statement of M who had already admitted that he had sold land in question to D, was not justified‑Concurrent orders of Collector and Com missioner below not interfered with. 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 1965 W (PLP) (SARDAR KHAN AHD OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus SARDAR AND OTHERS‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Noor Ahmad for Petitioners.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑Sale of 6/7th share of a Khasra No. from M to D --Mutation sanctioned‑Collector on inspection report of Revenue Assistant allowing Review for finding out whether D was an owner in estate as well as, whether sale did not contravene provisions of West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation [ (C. M. L. A's.) No. 64]‑Revenue Officer reviewing mutation simply rejecting same, in absence of D, on basis of statement of M that he had not made the sale to D‑‑M subsequently, also pleading that after Review there was a second sale to D‑Held, that order rejecting mutation was irregular, and being on mere statement of M who had already admitted that he had sold land in question to D, was not justified‑Concurrent orders of Collector and Com missioner below not interfered with.
Judgment & Decree
Noor Ahmad for Petitioners. This is a second revision filed against an order dated the 13th of April 1964, passed by Commissioner, Rawalpindi, where by the revision preferred by the petitioner was rejected. The facts of the case are that Mehro son of Imam Din sold 6/7th of Khasra No. 188 in favour of Sardar son of Mehr Dad for Rs. 3,
600. A mutation was sanctioned on 18‑9‑1960. During the course of the inspection of the Tehsil, the Revenue Assistant raised the objection that it was not clear whether the purchaser was the owner in the revenue estate or there had been a contravention of the provisions of Martial Law Regulation No.
64. The Collector later on allowed the review of the mutation. The Revenue Officer did not go into the question raised by the Revenue Assistant but on the statement of Mehro that he had not sold the land to Sardar son of Mehr Dad, the mutation was rejected. The original vendee went in appeal to the Collector who accepted it. A revision was filed before the Commissioner but it was rejected. Hence this second revision. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners. He contends that there was no sale in favour of the original vendee. I am afraid I cannot accept this contention. Before the Revenue Officer, the vendor clearly stated that he sold the land to Sardar son of Mehr Dad. It was only then that the mutation No. 2073 was sanctioned on 18‑9‑1960. The matter was to be reconsidered for finding out whether provisions of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 had been contra vened or not. The Revenue Officer, however, reviewed the mutation on the consideration that the land had not been sold to the original vendee. decision was given against the 14 original vendee without his having been heard. This decision was, therefore, irregular. The learned counsel for the petitioners has also contended that, after the mutation had been reviewed, there was a second sale in favour of the petitioner. The question at the moment is not whether there has been a second sale or not but whether the Revenue Officer correctly or wrongly reviewed the original mutation. This was done in the absence of the vendee on then mere statement of the vendor who had previously given his definite statement that the land in question had been sold to Sardar son of Mehr Dad. In these circumstances, I see no justification for any inter ference to the concurrent findings of the learned Collector and the learned Commissioner. The revision fails and is dismissed hereby. A. H. Petition dismissed.