P L D 1957 W (PLP)
MUHAMMAD AMIN and others‑Petitioners Versus MURAD and another‑Respondents
| Citation | P L D 1957 W (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD AMIN and others‑Petitioners Versus MURAD and another‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1957 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 1957 W (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1957 W (PLP) (MUHAMMAD AMIN and others‑Petitioners Versus MURAD and another‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Karam Elahi, Advocate for Petitioners.
- Kh. Abdur Rahim, Advocate for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 114‑Non Muslim occupancy tenant‑Custodian to decide question of extinguishment of occupancy rights‑Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance (XV of 1949), S. 34.
Judgment & Decree
H. A. MAJID.‑
The dispute between the parties initially related to the desire of the petitioners to oust the respondents from certain landed property. This property was formed by parts of lands included in three khataunis prepared at the time of rectangulation. The final decision in the case was that the order of ejectment issued against the respondents should be set aside. I was moved for reviewing the said order which had been passed by Mr. Nasir Ahmad on 3rd March 1956. I decided to look into the matter further in respect of that part of the land in dispute which was included in Khatauni No.
171. My division to consider the said order in review was based on the claim that there was no non‑Muslim occupancy tenant in that part of the land at the time of the establishment of Pakistan. The khatauni itself contains the name of Bhagwan Dass as the occupancy tenant. The petitioners claim that this name had no business to be there, because in certain mutation proceedings prior to 1947, it had been decided that the occupancy right in that land had been extinguished. It is, however, clear that in fact no mutation removing the name of Bhagwan Dass was ever sanctioned before 1947. The question can arise whether a Revenue Officer dealing with mutations could effectively extinguished the existing occupancy tenancies. Thus, there is a dispute between the parties before me on the following point:‑-- " Whether the occupancy tenancy of Bhagwan Dass did or did not exist at the time when Bhagwan Dass migrated from Pakistan " ? This question can only be determined by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. Prima facie, Bhagwan Dass must be considered to be the occupancy tenant in the land until the Custodian gives a division to the contrary. I cannot, therefore, permit the petitioners, who claim as landlords, to seek the eject meat of the respondents who are in possession. This matter must be decided again by the Rehabilitation authorities for the time being. The petitioners' counsel has requested that I should make a reference to the Custodian under section 34 of the Administration of Evacuee Property Ordinance. To my mind, this is not a reference which must be made during the present proceeding, because the petitioners can always seek the ejectment of the respondents if their claim is established in the Custodian's Court. This is without prejudice to the question whether the landlords in a case like this are the owners of the land or the Kasurkhawrs. In the above circumstances, there is no justification or altering my predecessor's order refusing to eject the respondents from the land in dispute. I, therefore, dismiss this petition for review. M. S. Petition dismissed.